ABA Testing, Inc. v. Bay View Towers Apartments, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ABA Testing, Inc. v. Bay View Towers Apartments, Inc.

112 A.D.2d 181, 491 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55932

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 8, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 181 (ABA Testing, Inc. v. Bay View Towers Apartments, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ABA Testing, Inc. v. Bay View Towers Apartments, Inc., 112 A.D.2d 181, 491 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated March 6, 1984, as granted respondents’ motion to vacate default judgments against them.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with Special Term that the plaintiff failed to make a proper application for leave to enter a default judgment against the two individual defendants. The application for leave to enter a default judgment was limited to the corporate defendant. Thus, the default judgments entered as to the respondents were technically defective, and, therefore, were properly vacated. Brown, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated March 6, 1984, as granted respondents’ motion to vacate default judgments against them.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with Special Term that the plaintiff failed to make a proper application for leave to enter a default judgment against the two individual defendants. The application for leave to enter a default judgment was limited to the corporate defendant. Thus, the default judgments entered as to the respondents were technically defective, and, therefore, were properly vacated. Brown, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 181, 491 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aba-testing-inc-v-bay-view-towers-apartments-inc-nyappdiv-1985.