Babbo v. Babbo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Babbo v. Babbo

191 A.D.2d 606, 595 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2671

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 606 (Babbo v. Babbo) 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

Babbo v. Babbo, 191 A.D.2d 606, 595 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated November 8, 1989, entered upon the defendant’s default in answering, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated March 7, 1991, which denied his motion to vacate the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of divorce entered upon his default in answering. The defendant neither proffered a legally acceptable excuse for his default nor demonstrated any meritorious defenses to the plaintiff’s claims (see, Wayasamin v Wayasamin, 167 AD2d 460). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated November 8, 1989, entered upon the defendant’s default in answering, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated March 7, 1991, which denied his motion to vacate the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of divorce entered upon his default in answering. The defendant neither proffered a legally acceptable excuse for his default nor demonstrated any meritorious defenses to the plaintiff’s claims (see, Wayasamin v Wayasamin, 167 AD2d 460). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 606, 595 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babbo-v-babbo-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack