Scopino v. St. Joseph's Hospital

5 Citing cases

  1. Scopino v. St. Joseph's Hosp

    74 N.Y.2d 843 (N.Y. 1989)

    Decided September 21, 1989 Appeal from (2d dept: 142 A.D.2d 569; App. Div., 2d dept, Apr. 28, 1989) FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

  2. Billings v. Rao

    172 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 4 times

    It is well established that a party seeking to be relieved of his or her default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and merit (see, Pannullo v. Staro, 139 A.D.2d 636; see also, Scopino v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 142 A.D.2d 569). The sufficiency of the excuse for the default, as well as of the affidavit establishing the meritorious case, is ordinarily left to the discretion of the Supreme Court (see, Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Andersen Co., 60 N.Y.2d 693; Perellie v. Crimson's Rest., 108 A.D.2d 903; De Vito v. Marine Midland Bank, 100 A.D.2d 530).

  3. Matter of Baretto v. Cooper Square Community

    155 A.D.2d 366 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

    To vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) movants are required to demonstrate that the default is excusable and that the action is meritorious. (See, Scopino v St. Joseph's Hosp., 142 A.D.2d 569 [2d Dept 1988].) Petitioners here failed to meet either burden and particularly failed to show that their action to inspect the respondent's membership list, pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 621, was meritorious.

  4. Giglio v. Jacobson

    154 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

    We find that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion by granting the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the matter to the Trial Calendar. The plaintiffs submitted a reasonable explanation for their conduct which led to the dismissal of the action and an affidavit of merit from a dentist establishing the existence of a meritorious claim (cf., Scopino v St. Joseph's Hosp., 142 A.D.2d 569). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

  5. Energy EIAC Capital Ltd. v. Maxim Grp. LLC

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 33681 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    To prevail under §5015(a)(1), the movant must show both that his or her default is excusable and that the action is meritorious." (Scopino vSt. Joseph's Hosp, 142 AD2d 569, 570 [2d Dept 1988]).