From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hurtig v. Podmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1978
63 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Opinion

June 5, 1978


In consolidated actions and proceedings, inter alia, to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington made on August 5, 1976, which, in part, found that the three structures on the appellant's land may each be legally occupied by one family, as a continuing nonconforming use, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 24, 1978, which denied the appellant's motion to, in effect, vacate a default judgment of the same court, entered January 6, 1978, and to restore the matters to the trial calendar. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. In our opinion it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion to vacate the appellant's default in appearing for trial. That default was caused by his attorney's actual engagement in another court and her illness later that afternoon (see Benn v Baltimore Ohio R.R., Co., 286 App. Div. 992; Gawel v DeLuca, 263 App. Div. 838). Damiani, J.P., Suozzi, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hurtig v. Podmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1978
63 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)
Case details for

Hurtig v. Podmore

Case Details

Full title:FRANK HURTIG et al., Respondents, v. WILLIAM D. PODMORE, Appellant, et…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1978

Citations

63 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

Maiello v. Chrysler Corp.

We agree. The procedure governing an application for an adjournment based upon trial counsel's inability to…