Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Mena v. Choon-Ket Kong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 28, 2000

269 A.D.2d 575; 703 N.Y.S.2d 923; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2124

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Juseinoski v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Harcztark v. Drive Variety, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Orwell Building Corp. v. Bessaha (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Burns v. Casale (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for, inter alia, personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated February 25, 1998, which denied their motion to vacate *576an order of the same court, dated December 10, 1997, made upon their default in answering.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the order dated December 10, 1997, is vacated.

A court may excuse a default in answering upon a showing of a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Fox v Bicanic, 163 AD2d 272). The affidavit of the defendant Choon-Ket Kong established a meritorious defense to the action. In addition, we are satisfied that the defendants provided a justifiable excuse for their default (see, Fox v Bicanic, supra; Murphy v D. V. Waste Control Corp., 124 AD2d 573). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Peuerstein, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.