Zimet v. Bufano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zimet v. Bufano

65 A.D.3d 1037, 884 N.Y.S.2d 880

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

DecidedSeptember 8, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 1037 (Zimet v. Bufano) 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

Zimet v. Bufano, 65 A.D.3d 1037, 884 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Rosemary Búfano appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J), dated June 27, 2008, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered February 20, 2007, upon her default in answering, which, after an inquest on the issue of damages, was in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $57,350.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment is granted.

In order to prevail on a motion to vacate a judgment entered upon default, a defendant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense (see Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]; Amato v Fast Repair, Inc., 15 AD3d 429 [2005]; Costanza v Gold, 12 AD3d 551, 552 [2004]; Czarnik v Urban, 10 AD3d 627 [2004]). In this case, the defendant provided a reasonable excuse for her default. In addition, the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, including whether the claims made by the plaintiff in this case had been settled by the parties in 2001 during prior litigation. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello, Eng and Hall, 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 breach of contract, the defendant Rosemary Búfano appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J), dated June 27, 2008, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered February 20, 2007, upon her default in answering, which, after an inquest on the issue of damages, was in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $57,350.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment is granted.

In order to prevail on a motion to vacate a judgment entered upon default, a defendant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense (see Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]; Amato v Fast Repair, Inc., 15 AD3d 429 [2005]; Costanza v Gold, 12 AD3d 551, 552 [2004]; Czarnik v Urban, 10 AD3d 627 [2004]). In this case, the defendant provided a reasonable excuse for her default. In addition, the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, including whether the claims made by the plaintiff in this case had been settled by the parties in 2001 during prior litigation. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 1037, 884 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimet-v-bufano-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack