From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gallo v. Bosco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1961
13 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Opinion

June 12, 1961


In an action to recover money loaned and damages sustained as a result of an alleged conspiracy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 27, 1961, which granted the motion of defendant Tina Bosco to open her default, to vacate the default judgment entered against her for $5,927.25, and to permit her to serve an answer, and which vacated an order of severance by said court, dated October 5, 1960, such relief being granted on the condition: (1) that the said judgment remain a lien as security for any recovery which may be had against her in the action; (2) that she serve an answer within 10 days after the service of a copy of the order with notice of entry and (3) that she pay costs in the sum of $25. Order affirmed, without costs. Said defendant's time to serve her answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. A default may be opened on appropriate terms where, as here, it occurred through a defendant's mistake or ignorance as to the law (see, e.g., Gideon v. Dwyer, 17 Misc. 233, affd. 7 App. Div. 608; President, etc., of Eagle Bank of New Haven v. Holley, 7 Cow. 514). Nolan, P.J., Beldock, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gallo v. Bosco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1961
13 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)
Case details for

Gallo v. Bosco

Case Details

Full title:ROSA GALLO, as Administratrix of the Estate of SAVINO GALLO, Deceased…

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

Date published: Jun 12, 1961

Citations

13 A.D.2d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Citing Cases

Ulster Savings Bank v. Total Communities, Inc.

Movants each failed to answer the complaint herein after each had been advised by their then respective…

Meyerson v. John A. Lynch, Inc.

In our opinion, the order made on December 14, 1966, prior to the two orders now under review, and which…