Yusupova v. T. Lampropoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yusupova v. T. Lampropoulos

18 A.D.3d 908, 793 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4833

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

DecidedMay 2, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 908 (Yusupova v. T. Lampropoulos) 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

Yusupova v. T. Lampropoulos, 18 A.D.3d 908, 793 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated June 25, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants Valery B. Maximov and Ernest Z. Khanatayev to vacate an order of the same court dated August 14, 2003, granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter judgment against them upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated August 14, 2003, is reinstated.

A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering [467]*467must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Exeter Holding v Morway Bldrs. & Devs., 270 AD2d 451, 452 [2000]). The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the respondents’ motion to vacate their default since the respondents failed to satisfy the requisite standard. Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, 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 (G. Aronin, J.), dated June 25, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants Valery B. Maximov and Ernest Z. Khanatayev to vacate an order of the same court dated August 14, 2003, granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter judgment against them upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated August 14, 2003, is reinstated.

A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering [467]*467must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Exeter Holding v Morway Bldrs. & Devs., 270 AD2d 451, 452 [2000]). The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the respondents’ motion to vacate their default since the respondents failed to satisfy the requisite standard. Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 908, 793 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yusupova-v-t-lampropoulos-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack