From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorgie v. Dalton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1982
90 A.D.2d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

November 8, 1982


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), entered March 1, 1982, as conditionally (a) vacated defendants' default in failing to appear, and (b) granting defendants' motion to vacate and set aside an inquest taken November 4, 1981, at the conclusion of which Trial Term awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $35,000. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Under the particular facts of this case, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to vacate defendants' default in failing to appear and to grant their motion to set aside the inquest taken against them. Defendants, who were served by affixing a copy of the summons with notice to the door of their home and mailing (CPLR 308, subd 4), have failed to establish that vacatur of their default is appropriate under either CPLR 317 or 5015. CPLR 317 affords the court discretionary power to open a default where it is demonstrated that a defendant "did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense", the burden of demonstrating such lack of knowledge being upon defendant (CPLR 317; National Bank of Northern N.Y. v. Grasso, 79 A.D.2d 871; Marine Midland Bank v Tooker, 78 A.D.2d 755, see 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, pars 317.07, 317.08). At bar, defendants failed to assert any facts which would establish that they did not receive the summons with notice in time to appear. Indeed, their traverse of the service was unsuccessful so it is established fact that proper service was made. Therefore, to succeed in vacating their default, defendants must demonstrate, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (subd [a], par 1), that the default was excusable and that they have a meritorious defense (see 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, par 5015.04; Small v. Applebaum, 79 A.D.2d 572). Since defendants' approximately nine-month delay in appearing was not explained by any showing on the record of an excusable default, the relief sought should have been denied (see Goldstein v. Mazza, 88 A.D.2d 987). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sorgie v. Dalton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1982
90 A.D.2d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Sorgie v. Dalton

Case Details

Full title:VINCENT J. SORGIE, Appellant, v. DONALD DALTON et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 8, 1982

Citations

90 A.D.2d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank v. Ghosh

Nevertheless, defendant Gill must establish that she did not personally receive notice of the summons in time…

Sport-O-Rama Hlt. Fitness Ctr. v. Centennial

In the case at bar, counsel's affidavit was legally sufficient to overcome the presumption, and since the…