Behette v. Berry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Behette v. Berry

280 A.D.2d 628, 720 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1820

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 628 (Behette v. Berry) 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

Behette v. Berry, 280 A.D.2d 628, 720 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Lady Liza Berry appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carson, J.), dated December 9, 1999, which denied her motion to stay foreclosure and to vacate a prior judgment of the same court, entered October 8, 1999, upon her default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to vacate her default in answering the complaint based upon her claim of intrinsic fraud, the appellant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]; Fischman v Gilmore, 246 AD2d 508; Morel v Clacherty, 186 AD2d 638). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the appellant’s excuse that she did not answer the complaint because she did not recognize the names of the people in the caption. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Lady Liza Berry appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carson, J.), dated December 9, 1999, which denied her motion to stay foreclosure and to vacate a prior judgment of the same court, entered October 8, 1999, upon her default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to vacate her default in answering the complaint based upon her claim of intrinsic fraud, the appellant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]; Fischman v Gilmore, 246 AD2d 508; Morel v Clacherty, 186 AD2d 638). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the appellant’s excuse that she did not answer the complaint because she did not recognize the names of the people in the caption. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 628, 720 N.Y.S.2d 830, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behette-v-berry-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack