From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Warn v. Choi-Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 2002
291 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-06764

Submitted January 16, 2002.

February 19, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated June 12, 2001, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their failure to timely answer or appear in the action and conditionally granted the defendants' cross motion for leave to answer and appear in the action.

S. Edmund Resciniti, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for appellant.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for an inquest on damages.

A party seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing must make a showing of a justifiable excuse for the default, and a meritorious defense (see, Hazen v. Bottiglieri, 286 A.D.2d 708; Miles v. Blue Label Trucking, 232 A.D.2d 382). The only excuse offered for failure to timely serve an answer was delay caused by the defendants' insurance carrier, which is insufficient (see, Hazen v. Bottiglieri, supra).

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, O'BRIEN, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Warn v. Choi-Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 2002
291 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Warn v. Choi-Lee

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY WARN, appellant, v. SEUNG K. CHOI-LEE, ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Feb 19, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 490 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 228

Citing Cases

Juseinoski v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y

The defendants failed on both accounts. An insurance carrier's delay is insufficient to establish a…

Huertas v. Videla

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court…