Berman v. Outram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berman v. Outram

208 A.D.2d 484, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9314

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 484 (Berman v. Outram) 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

Berman v. Outram, 208 A.D.2d 484, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a promissory note and mortgage, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated November 17, 1992, as denied his cross motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s cross motion to vacate the default judgment previously entered against him in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The defendant failed to show excusable default and a meritorious defense which would warrant vacating the judgment (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on a promissory note and mortgage, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated November 17, 1992, as denied his cross motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s cross motion to vacate the default judgment previously entered against him in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The defendant failed to show excusable default and a meritorious defense which would warrant vacating the judgment (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 484, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-outram-nyappdiv-1994.