From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dibella v. Pennino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 2005
17 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-06640.

April 25, 2005.

In an action to recover damages based on intentional assault, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated December 9, 2003, which denied his motion to vacate a prior judgment of the same court entered May 19, 2003, made after an inquest, upon an order of the same court dated February 24, 2003, granting the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to strike his answer upon his default in opposing the motion,

DeMaggio DeMaggio, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven DeMaggio and David DeMaggio of counsel), for appellant.

Kiley, Kiley Kiley, Great Neck, N.Y. (Donald T. Kiley, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate his default in opposing the plaintiff's motion, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v. Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 596; Hirsch v. Monroe Bus Corp., 13 AD3d 486). The defendant failed to present a reasonable excuse for his failure to oppose the plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to vacate his default.


Summaries of

Dibella v. Pennino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 2005
17 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Dibella v. Pennino

Case Details

Full title:ANNA DIBELLA, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER PENNINO, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 25, 2005

Citations

17 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
792 N.Y.S.2d 905

Citing Cases

Town House St. v. New Fellowship Full Gospel

To vacate the interlocutory judgment based on excusable default, the appellant was required to present a…