From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Puija v. Dintino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 2003
2 A.D.3d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-01561.

December 22, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated January 29, 2003, which granted the defendant's motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer.

Ronald Cohen, New York, N.Y., for appellants.

Boeggeman, George, Hodges Corde, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Leslie K. Arfine of counsel), for respondent.

Before: HOWARD MILLER and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Fidelity Deposit Co. of Md. v. Anderson Co., 60 N.Y.2d 693; Parker v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 310).

RITTER, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Puija v. Dintino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 2003
2 A.D.3d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Puija v. Dintino

Case Details

Full title:MARY PUIJA, ET AL., appellants, v. ANTHONY DINTINO, respondent

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

Date published: Dec 22, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 614