From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nomako v. Ashton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 29, 1964
22 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

October 29, 1964


Order, entered on July 30, 1964, denying defendant's motion to vacate an ex parte order entered June 30, 1964 striking defendant's answer upon his default in appearing for an examination before trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, on condition that within 15 days from the entry of the order hereon defendant continues the surety company bond in the sum of $5,000 conditioned on the payment of the judgment, if any, hereafter awarded the plaintiff, and pay to the plaintiff a full bill of costs including plaintiff's costs and disbursements on appeal and $250 counsel fee; or otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to respondent. As a matter of general policy disposition of controversies on the merits is favored. To that purpose defaults will be vacated on a proper showing of a meritorious defense, an excusable default and the absence of willfulness. ( Benadon v. Antonio, 10 A.D.2d 40, 42.) Defendant's nonappearance herein strongly suggests purposeful conduct and accordingly we feel that the imposition of the conditions herein is indicated. Settle order on notice.

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.


Summaries of

Nomako v. Ashton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 29, 1964
22 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Nomako v. Ashton

Case Details

Full title:CAROLYN NOMAKO, Also Known as LYN ROSSI, Respondent, v. JOSEPH J. ASHTON…

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

Date published: Oct 29, 1964

Citations

22 A.D.2d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Warner v. Bumgarner

As a further condition to relief from the penalty hereinbefore imposed, defendants shall pay to plaintiff the…

Sutton v. Cobb

Any defects therein were waived when appellant opposed the motion on the merits (Todd v Gull Contr. Co., 22…