ASSOCIATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. KIPP'S ARCADIAN II, INC.

• Decision Date: 16 December 2002
• Citation: 750 N.Y.S.2d 888,300 A.D.2d 425
• Parties: ASSOCIATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>KIPP'S ARCADIAN II, INC., Doing Business as KIPP'S PHARMACY, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.)<BR>EXCHANGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>KIPP'S ARCADIAN II, INC., Doing Business as KIPP'S PHARMACY, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)<BR>CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>SAN REALTY CORP. et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.)<BR>COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>SAN REALTY CORP. et al., Defendants. (Action No. 4.)<BR>AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs,<BR>v.<BR>SAN REALTY CORP. et al., Defendants. (Action No. 5.)<BR>ANTHONY A. VASSALLO, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>SAN REALTY CORP. et al., Defendants, and<BR>FANNING ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Respondent. (Action No. 6.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

300 A.D.2d 425

750 N.Y.S.2d 888

ASSOCIATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.KIPP'S ARCADIAN II, INC., Doing Business as KIPP'S PHARMACY, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.)

EXCHANGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.KIPP'S ARCADIAN II, INC., Doing Business as KIPP'S PHARMACY, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.SAN REALTY CORP. et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.)

COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.SAN REALTY CORP. et al., Defendants. (Action No. 4.)

AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs,

v.SAN REALTY CORP. et al., Defendants. (Action No. 5.)

ANTHONY A. VASSALLO, Appellant,

v.SAN REALTY CORP. et al., Defendants, andFANNING ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Respondent. (Action No. 6.)

Decided December 16, 2002.

Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, O'Brien and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a defendant seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310; Piacentini v Mineola Union Free School Dist., 267 AD2d 290, 291; Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512). Such a showing was made in this case.

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.