From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Siorek v. Zablocki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1999
267 A.D.2d 299 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted November 17, 1999

December 13, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated December 15, 1998, which granted the defendant's motion to vacate a judgment, entered January 27, 1998, upon his default in answering the complaint.

Godosky Gentile, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert E. Godosky of counsel), for appellant.

Seth A. Flaum, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established both a reasonable excuse for his default in interposing an answer and a meritorious defense (see, Hinderer v. Erbesh, 240 A.D.2d 707 ; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568 ). Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment which was entered upon his default.

MANGANO, P.J., RITTER, McGINITY, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Siorek v. Zablocki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1999
267 A.D.2d 299 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Siorek v. Zablocki

Case Details

Full title:STANISLAWA SIOREK, appellant, v. RICHARD ZABLOCKI, respondent

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

Date published: Dec 13, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 299 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
699 N.Y.S.2d 881

Citing Cases

Siorek v. Zablocki

Upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination granting the defendant's…

Erdheim v. Deutsch

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court…