Britvan v. Sutton & Edwards, Inc.

226 A.D.2d 491, 641 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 15, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 491 (Britvan v. Sutton & Edwards, Inc.) 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
Britvan v. Sutton & Edwards, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 491, 641 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 7,1994, which granted the defendant Herbert Agin’s motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated March 17, 1994, entered upon his default in answering the complaint and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion, inter alia, to sever the action against the defendant Herbert Agin.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When determining the plaintiff’s application for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Herbert Agin and Agin’s subsequent motion to reargue the plaintiff’s application, the Supreme Court did not consider whether Agin’s delay in answering was excusable and whether Agin had a meritorious defense to this action because, on both occasions, Agin failed to submit an affidavit of merit containing a justifiable excuse and a meritorious defense. We, therefore, find no merit to the plaintiff’s contention that Agin should not have been allowed to relitigate those issues on a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate his default (see, Picinic v Seatrain Lines, 117 AD2d 504; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5015:6, at 467).

[492]*492In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiff’s remaining contention. Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Mallouk
2024 NY Slip Op 04094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Jaskiel v. Tsatskis
57 A.D.3d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Glendora v. Mastrorilli
14 Misc. 3d 87 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Peterson v. Brook
307 A.D.2d 259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Rand v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
280 A.D.2d 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Szilaski v. Aphrodite Construction Co.
247 A.D.2d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Britvan v. Sutton & Edwards, Inc.
226 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 A.D.2d 491, 641 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britvan-v-sutton-edwards-inc-nyappdiv-1996.