Beneficial Homeowner Service Corp. v. Charles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beneficial Homeowner Service Corp. v. Charles

95 A.D.3d 1049, 943 N.Y.S.2d 904

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

DecidedMay 15, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1049 (Beneficial Homeowner Service Corp. v. Charles) 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

Beneficial Homeowner Service Corp. v. Charles, 95 A.D.3d 1049, 943 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Hiram [1050]*1050Charles appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered September 10, 2010, as denied his motion, inter alia, in effect, to vacate his default in appearing or answering, and pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant Hiram Charles, in effect, to vacate his default in appearing or answering, and pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer, since he failed to demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Intervest Natl. Bank v Ashburton 70, LLC, 87 AD3d 617 [2011]; Moriano v Provident N.Y. Bancorp, 71 AD3d 747 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, 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 Hiram [1050]*1050Charles appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered September 10, 2010, as denied his motion, inter alia, in effect, to vacate his default in appearing or answering, and pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant Hiram Charles, in effect, to vacate his default in appearing or answering, and pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer, since he failed to demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see Intervest Natl. Bank v Ashburton 70, LLC, 87 AD3d 617 [2011]; Moriano v Provident N.Y. Bancorp, 71 AD3d 747 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 1049, 943 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beneficial-homeowner-service-corp-v-charles-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack