Zino v. Joab Taxi, Inc.

20 A.D.3d 521, 799 N.Y.S.2d 124, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7858
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 18, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 20 A.D.3d 521 (Zino v. Joab Taxi, Inc.) 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
Zino v. Joab Taxi, Inc., 20 A.D.3d 521, 799 N.Y.S.2d 124, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), dated August 5, 2004, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Joab Taxi, Inc., upon its failure to appear or answer and for an inquest on the issue of damages, and deemed the answer of the defendant Joab Taxi, Inc., timely served nunc pro tunc.

[522]*522Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for an inquest on the issue of damages.

To avoid the entry of judgment upon its failure to appear or answer, the defendant Joab Taxi, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant) was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353 [2005]; Ennis v Lema, 305 AD2d 632, 633 [2003]). The defendant failed to do either. Accordingly, its default should not have been excused (see Ennis v Lema, supra). Furthermore, the Supreme Court erred in deeming the answer timely served nunc pro tunc in the absence of a motion for such relief (CPLR 2215; Blam v Netcher, 17 AD3d 495 [2005]; Pampalone v Giant Bldg. Maintenance, Inc., 17 AD3d 556 [2005]).

The plaintiff submitted proof of service of the summons and the complaint (see CPLR 311 [a] [1]), and a factually-detailed complaint, which he verified (see CPLR 105 [u]; Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 70-71 [2003]). Therefore, the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant upon its default should have been granted, and the matter should have been allowed to proceed to inquest (see Andrade v Ranginwala, 297 AD2d 691 [2002]). H. Miller, J.P, S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Boutov v. Hanson
2026 NY Slip Op 31058(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Corvera v. Ritz
2026 NY Slip Op 30755(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Blue Elephant Specialty Fin. Fund, LP v. Gaspard & Menon Constr., LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 52131(U) (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, 2025)
Jones v. Greuner
2025 NY Slip Op 30058(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Maisano v. Amsterdam Nursing Home Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 33592(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc.
110 A.D.3d 56 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Wassertheil v. Elburg, LLC
94 A.D.3d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Anderson v. Vasquez
89 A.D.3d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Holubar v. Holubar
89 A.D.3d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
McGee v. Dunn
75 A.D.3d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Triangle Properties 2, LLC v. Narang
73 A.D.3d 1030 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
May v. Hartsdale Manor Owners Corp.
73 A.D.3d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mastroianni v. Rallye Glen Cove
59 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Perry
23 Misc. 3d 827 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
Grinage v. City of New York
45 A.D.3d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Hosten v. Oladapo
44 A.D.3d 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Hermitage Insurance v. Trance Night Club, Inc.
40 A.D.3d 1032 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
White v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead
13 Misc. 3d 471 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Giovanelli v. Rivera
23 A.D.3d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 A.D.3d 521, 799 N.Y.S.2d 124, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zino-v-joab-taxi-inc-nyappdiv-2005.