April 6, 2006

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50581(U))

Headnote

The court considered the motion by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to vacate a default judgment in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company had established a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense to the action. The holding of the court was that upon a review of the record, there was no basis to disturb the lower court's finding that the defendant had indeed established both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense to the action. Therefore, the lower court's order granting the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50581(U))

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50581(U)) [*1]

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 50581(U) [11 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on April 6, 2006

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 6, 2006

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
2005-567 K C.

Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C., a/a/o George Prince, Stephanie Florian and Daunte Gray, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered January 14, 2005. The order granted defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, a default judgment was entered and defendant moved to vacate same. Upon a review of the record, we [*2]
find no basis upon which to disturb the lower court’s finding that defendant established both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense to the action
(see Titan Realty Corp. v Schlem, 283 AD2d 568 [2001]; Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]). Accordingly, the lower court’s order granting defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment should be affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 6, 2006