From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poler Contr. v. 3311 Shore Parkway Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 2001
287 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted October 3, 2001.

October 22, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated February 15, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered July 28, 2000, upon its default in answering the complaint on condition that the judgment stand as security pending the disposition of the action.

Altschul Altschul, New York, N.Y. (Mark M. Altschul of counsel), for appellant.

Richard P. Marin, New York, N.Y. (George Tzimopoulos of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in answering a complaint must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568). Since the defendant satisfied both requirements, the Supreme Court properly granted its motion to vacate the default judgment entered July 28, 2000, on condition that the judgment stand as security pending the disposition of the action.

S. MILLER, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Poler Contr. v. 3311 Shore Parkway Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 2001
287 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Poler Contr. v. 3311 Shore Parkway Realty

Case Details

Full title:POLER CONTRACTING, INC., appellant, v. 3311 SHORE PARKWAY REALTY CORP.…

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

Date published: Oct 22, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 855

Citing Cases

REEM CONTR. CORP. v. 224 LAFAYETTE ST. CORP.

PER CURIAM: Given the judicial preference for resolving cases on the merits ( see Atkins v. Malota, 1 AD3d…

Lexis-Nexis v. Standard Weisberg

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant should have been allowed to serve an answer and have a…