Allied Building Products Corp. v. Clarke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allied Building Products Corp. v. Clarke

187 A.D.2d 1036, 590 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14104

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 1036 (Allied Building Products Corp. v. Clarke) 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

Allied Building Products Corp. v. Clarke, 187 A.D.2d 1036, 590 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment because defendant Karen E. Clarke failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at trial (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Passalacqua v Banat, 103 AD2d 769). Defendant’s failure to communicate or cooperate with her attorney does not excuse her default (see, Candeloro v Candeloro, 133 AD2d 731; Kirkman/3hree, Inc. v Priority AMC/Jeep, 94 AD2d 870), particularly when the lack of communication was largely due to defendant’s refusal to accept any mail concerning the litigation (see, Cherney v De Rosa, 61 AD2d 931, lv denied 45 NY2d 733; see also, Personnel Sys. Intl. v Clifford R. Gray, Inc., 146 AD2d 831). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Vacate Default Judgment.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment because defendant Karen E. Clarke failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at trial (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Passalacqua v Banat, 103 AD2d 769). Defendant’s failure to communicate or cooperate with her attorney does not excuse her default (see, Candeloro v Candeloro, 133 AD2d 731; Kirkman/3hree, Inc. v Priority AMC/Jeep, 94 AD2d 870), particularly when the lack of communication was largely due to defendant’s refusal to accept any mail concerning the litigation (see, Cherney v De Rosa, 61 AD2d 931, lv denied 45 NY2d 733; see also, Personnel Sys. Intl. v Clifford R. Gray, Inc., 146 AD2d 831). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — Vacate Default Judgment.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 1036, 590 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allied-building-products-corp-v-clarke-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack