Rugieri v. Bannister
| Decision Date | 29 June 2006 |
| Citation | 7 N.Y.3d 742,853 N.E.2d 231 |
| Parties | John E. RUGIERI et al., as Guardians of Joseph Rugieri, Respondents, v. Marie BANNISTER, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to defendant Cheek against the plaintiffs, by granting defendant Cheek's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to the plaintiffs against the Bannister defendants. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
Because plaintiffs did not establish a triable issue of fact regarding defendant Leane Cheek's alleged negligence, the Appellate Division erred in reversing Supreme Court's grant of Cheek's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division, however, did not abuse its discretion in vacating the judgments and reinstating the complaint as against the Bannister defendants since plaintiffs proffered a reasonable excuse for their default and facts indicating a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v. Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 N.Y.2d 831, 832-833, 523 N.Y.S.2d 441, 517 N.E.2d 1327 (1987); Eugene DiLorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lumber Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116 (1986)). On remittal to Supreme Court, the parties are left to litigate the motion pending at the time the default judgment was entered.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Fortini
...for the purposes of avoiding dismissal (see generally Rugieri v. Bannister, 22 A.D.3d 299, 302, 802 N.Y.S.2d 140, mod 7 N.Y.3d 742, 819 N.Y.S.2d 861, 853 N.E.2d 231 ).Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in entertaining the plaintiff's......
-
Guadino v. Rudd
...Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co ., 67 NY2d 138, 492 N.E.2d 116, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8 (1986) ; Rugieri v. Bannister , 7 NY3d 742, 853 N.E.2d 231, 819 N.Y.S.2d 861 (2006) ("plaintiffs proffered a reasonable excuse for their default and facts indicating a meritorious cause of actio......
-
Toos v. Leggiadro Int'l, Inc.
...168 [1st Dept. 2013]; Rugieri v. Bannister, 22 A.D.3d 299, 802 N.Y.S.2d 140 [1st Dept. 2005], affd. in relevant part7 N.Y.3d 742, 819 N.Y.S.2d 861, 853 N.E.2d 231 [2006] ). Assuming arguendo that plaintiff's initial affidavit of merits was inadequate in the procedural context of this case, ......
-
Margulffis v. Gardner
...a reasonable excuse for his or her default and facts indicating that his or her action (or defense) is meritorious. Rugieri v. Bannister, 7 N.Y.3d 742, 744 (2006). Turning to whether plaintiffs have shown that their claim has merit, in medical malpractice cases, an affidavit or affirmation ......
-
A nullity or not? The status of a default judgment entered absent compliance with CPLR 3215(f).
...of Md. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 60 N.Y.2d 693, 695, 455 N.E.2d 1259, 1260, 468 N.Y.S.2d 464, 465 (1983); see Rugieri v. Bannister, 7 N.Y.3d 742, 744, 853 N.E.2d 231, 232, 819 N.Y.S.2d 861, 862 (2006); see generally John R. Higgitt, Laxness Dismissal Survival Guide: Restoring Actions, N......