Shapouri v. Molinelli

74 A.D.3d 1048, 902 N.Y.S.2d 392

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated November 5, 2009, as granted the defendants’ cross motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate their default in appearing or answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[1049] A defendant seeking to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Kramer v Oil Servs., Inc., 65 AD3d 523 [2009]; Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672 [2006]; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823 [2005]). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding a reasonable excuse and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ cross motion to vacate their default in appearing or answering the complaint. Covello, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Shapouri v. Molinelli, 74 A.D.3d 1048, 902 N.Y.S.2d 392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

74 A.D.3d 1048 (Shapouri v. Molinelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Krieger v. Cohan
18 A.D.3d 823 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Lemberger v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc.
33 A.D.3d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Kramer v. Oil Services, Inc.
65 A.D.3d 523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)