Citibank, N. A. v. Amato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N. A. v. Amato

270 A.D.2d 446, 705 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 446 (Citibank, N. A. v. Amato) 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

Citibank, N. A. v. Amato, 270 A.D.2d 446, 705 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover the balance due under a retail installment sales contract, the de[447]*447fendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Eerier, J.), entered March 26, 1999, which, in effect, denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered October 15, 1997, upon his default in appearing and answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant attempting to vacate a judgment entered upon his or her default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Loria v Plesser, 267 AD2d 213; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568). The defendant does not argue that he had a reasonable excuse for his default, nor does he claim that he was not served with process. Accordingly, there is no basis to reverse the order appealed from and vacate the judgment. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover the balance due under a retail installment sales contract, the de[447]*447fendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Eerier, J.), entered March 26, 1999, which, in effect, denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered October 15, 1997, upon his default in appearing and answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant attempting to vacate a judgment entered upon his or her default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Loria v Plesser, 267 AD2d 213; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568). The defendant does not argue that he had a reasonable excuse for his default, nor does he claim that he was not served with process. Accordingly, there is no basis to reverse the order appealed from and vacate the judgment. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 446, 705 N.Y.S.2d 297, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-n-a-v-amato-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack