Shapouri v. Molinelli
This text of 74 A.D.3d 1048 (Shapouri v. Molinelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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]*1049A 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
74 A.D.3d 1048, 902 N.Y.S.2d 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapouri-v-molinelli-nyappdiv-2010.