From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mercado v. Ospina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted December 22, 1999

February 10, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Efrangil Ospina and Alvin Hidalgo appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 22, 1998, which denied their motion to vacate so much of an order of the same court, dated November 4, 1998, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a judgment against them upon their failure to appear or answer.

Podlofsky Orange, New York, N.Y. (Deborah Schechter of counsel), for appellants.

Bergman and Bergman, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Allen Goldberg and Michael E. Bergman of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P. THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and so much of the order dated November 4, 1998, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a judgment against the appellants is denied.

The appellants established both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015[a][1];Cooper v. P T; Gen. Contr. Corp., 260 A.D.2d 423; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568 ). Therefore, their motion to vacate their default should have been granted.


Summaries of

Mercado v. Ospina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Mercado v. Ospina

Case Details

Full title:LUIS MERCADO, respondent, v. EFRANGIL OSPINA, et al., appellants, et al.…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 859

Citing Cases

Medical Care Services v. Allstate Ins. Co.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion and conditionally…