Berra v. Mughal
228 A.D.2d 401, 643 N.Y.2d 423, 643 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6218
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 3, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
[402] Inasmuch as the defendants failed to establish a meritorious defense, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to vacate the judgment entered upon their default in answering the complaint (see, CPLR 317, 5015 [a]; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599; Halali v Gabbay, 223 AD2d 623). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Berra v. Mughal, 228 A.D.2d 401, 643 N.Y.2d 423, 643 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 401 (Berra v. Mughal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Tivoli v. Expedite Mediation Arbitration Services, Inc.
269 A.D.2d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)