Cohen v. Houseconnect Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Houseconnect Realty Corp.

16 A.D.3d 539, 790 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2948

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 539 (Cohen v. Houseconnect Realty Corp.) 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

Cohen v. Houseconnect Realty Corp., 16 A.D.3d 539, 790 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendant Sam Ailany, also known as Nahum Hilany, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated March 9, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated May 29, 2003, entered upon his default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393 [2004]; Spells v A&P Supermarkets, 253 AD2d 422 [540]*540[1998]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]). The appellant failed to make that showing. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, 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 damages for fraud, the defendant Sam Ailany, also known as Nahum Hilany, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated March 9, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated May 29, 2003, entered upon his default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393 [2004]; Spells v A&P Supermarkets, 253 AD2d 422 [540]*540[1998]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]). The appellant failed to make that showing. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 539, 790 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-houseconnect-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack