From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franklin Gringer v. Doreen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2003
302 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-03593

Submitted January 8, 2003.

February 13, 2003.

In an action to recover legal fees, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 15, 2002, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment entered upon their default, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same order.

Clark Amadio, Hempstead, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

Franklin Gringer, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Steven E. Cohen of counsel), respondent-appellant pro se.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved by the order cross-appealed from (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

To vacate a judgment entered upon a default in appearing or answering the complaint, a defendant must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; Murphy v. Mazel White St. Mgt., 289 A.D.2d 546). The defendants in this case failed to satisfy that standard.

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Franklin Gringer v. Doreen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2003
302 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Franklin Gringer v. Doreen

Case Details

Full title:FRANKLIN GRINGER, P.C., respondent-appellant, v. ANDREA DOREEN LTD., ET…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 13, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
754 N.Y.S.2d 887

Citing Cases

Montoya v. Richmond County Ambulance Service

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants' motion…