Berkshire Bank v. Mirabella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berkshire Bank v. Mirabella

200 A.D.2d 530, 606 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 585

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 530 (Berkshire Bank v. Mirabella) 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

Berkshire Bank v. Mirabella, 200 A.D.2d 530, 606 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.) entered on or about April 30, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion for vacatur of a default judgment entered against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant did not establish a reasonable excuse for his inaction in failing to answer the July 1992 summons and complaint or to move against the September 1992 default judgment until late February 1993. We also note that plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence, in the form of monthly bank statements and correspondence to defendant, which shows that defendant was both a party to the loan and was aware of the specifics of this agreement. Defendant has not submitted any documentary evidence or affidavits which would cast doubt on the authenticity of plaintiffs evidence. Thus, the record shows that defendant’s allegation of forgery is without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.) entered on or about April 30, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion for vacatur of a default judgment entered against him, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant did not establish a reasonable excuse for his inaction in failing to answer the July 1992 summons and complaint or to move against the September 1992 default judgment until late February 1993. We also note that plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence, in the form of monthly bank statements and correspondence to defendant, which shows that defendant was both a party to the loan and was aware of the specifics of this agreement. Defendant has not submitted any documentary evidence or affidavits which would cast doubt on the authenticity of plaintiffs evidence. Thus, the record shows that defendant’s allegation of forgery is without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 530, 606 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkshire-bank-v-mirabella-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack