From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gleissner v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted June 9, 1999

September 27, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 1, 1998, which granted the defendant's motion to compel him to accept a late answer, and denied his cross motion for leave to enter a judgment on the issue of liability upon the defendant's default in answering and for an inquest on the issue of damages.

Steven Louros, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Norman Volk Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael I. Josephs of counsel), for respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

A motion to be relieved of a default in answering is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and the exercise of such discretion generally should not be disturbed if there is support in the record therefor ( see, Mondrone v. Lakeview Auto Sales Serv., 170 A.D.2d 586). Since the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense to the action, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in compelling the plaintiff to accept the defendant's late answer ( see, Mondrone v. Lakeview Auto Sales Serv., supra).

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gleissner v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Gleissner v. Singh

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR L. GLEISSNER, appellant, v. SANTOKH SINGH, respondent

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

Date published: Sep 27, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 63

Citing Cases

Ujueta v. Wu

ORDERED that the order and the judgment are affirmed, with one bill of costs. The Supreme Court providently…

Hermele v. Sumkin

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for leave to serve a…