Siorek v. Zablocki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siorek v. Zablocki

267 A.D.2d 299, 699 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12880

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 299 (Siorek v. Zablocki) 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.

Bluebook

Siorek v. Zablocki, 267 A.D.2d 299, 699 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated December 15, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment, entered January 27, 1998, upon his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established both a reasonable excuse for his default in interposing an answer and a meritorious defense (see, Hinderer v Erbesh, 240 AD2d 707; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568). Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment which was entered upon his default. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated December 15, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment, entered January 27, 1998, upon his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established both a reasonable excuse for his default in interposing an answer and a meritorious defense (see, Hinderer v Erbesh, 240 AD2d 707; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568). Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment which was entered upon his default. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 299, 699 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siorek-v-zablocki-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack