Chavez v. Errico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chavez v. Errico

255 A.D.2d 353, 679 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11817

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 353 (Chavez v. Errico) 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

Chavez v. Errico, 255 A.D.2d 353, 679 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), entered November 14, 1997, which, after a hearing, denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate their default in appearing and answering the compláint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Parties attempting to vacate a default in appearing in an action and answering must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). The defendants have failed to satisfy that standard in this case. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), entered November 14, 1997, which, after a hearing, denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate their default in appearing and answering the compláint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Parties attempting to vacate a default in appearing in an action and answering must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). The defendants have failed to satisfy that standard in this case. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 353, 679 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavez-v-errico-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack