Chiulli v. Coyne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chiulli v. Coyne

292 A.D.2d 413, 738 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2497

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 413 (Chiulli v. Coyne) 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

Chiulli v. Coyne, 292 A.D.2d 413, 738 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover [414]*414money, inter alia, for services rendered, the defendant Marilyn Coyne appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated February 8, 2001, as denied her motion to vacate a judgment entered upon her default in answering the amended complaint.

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

To succeed on a motion to vacate a judgment entered upon her default, a defendant must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Gray v B.R. Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 649). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered upon her failure to answer the amended complaint, since she failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Westchester County Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 283 AD2d 488, 489; Perellie v Crimson’s Rest., 108 AD2d 903, 904). In light of this conclusion, we need not consider whether the appellant established the existence of a meritorious defense (see, J.P. Equip. Rental & Materials v Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co., 288 AD2d 187; Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v Matteo, 271 AD2d 422). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover [414]*414money, inter alia, for services rendered, the defendant Marilyn Coyne appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated February 8, 2001, as denied her motion to vacate a judgment entered upon her default in answering the amended complaint.

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

To succeed on a motion to vacate a judgment entered upon her default, a defendant must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Gray v B.R. Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 649). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered upon her failure to answer the amended complaint, since she failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Westchester County Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 283 AD2d 488, 489; Perellie v Crimson’s Rest., 108 AD2d 903, 904). In light of this conclusion, we need not consider whether the appellant established the existence of a meritorious defense (see, J.P. Equip. Rental & Materials v Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co., 288 AD2d 187; Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v Matteo, 271 AD2d 422). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 413, 738 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiulli-v-coyne-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack