Abarca v. Charge Account Credit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abarca v. Charge Account Credit Corp.

49 A.D.2d 722, 374 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10657

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 722 (Abarca v. Charge Account Credit Corp.) 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

Abarca v. Charge Account Credit Corp., 49 A.D.2d 722, 374 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 20, 1973, denying defendants-appellants’ motion to vacate a judgment entered against them following their default in appearing for trial, and order entered on April 3, 1974, denying appellants’ motion for leave to reargue and/or renew, as permitted by the earlier order, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Appellants failed to explain away their wilful default or to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. Their reliance on CPLR 321 (subd [c]) is misplaced, as they were represented by other counsel ever since the death of their original attorney in February, 1970. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 20, 1973, denying defendants-appellants’ motion to vacate a judgment entered against them following their default in appearing for trial, and order entered on April 3, 1974, denying appellants’ motion for leave to reargue and/or renew, as permitted by the earlier order, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Appellants failed to explain away their wilful default or to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. Their reliance on CPLR 321 (subd [c]) is misplaced, as they were represented by other counsel ever since the death of their original attorney in February, 1970. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 722, 374 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abarca-v-charge-account-credit-corp-nyappdiv-1975.