Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Fisher

197 A.D.2d 446, 604 N.Y.S.2d 706

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D.2d 446 (Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Fisher) 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

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Fisher, 197 A.D.2d 446, 604 N.Y.S.2d 706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [447]*447County (Diane Lebedeff, J.) entered June 30, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendant has not shown any meritorious defenses warranting relief from the default judgment under CPLR 5015 (a) (1). We also agree with the IAS Court that defendant did not submit proof indicative of an irregularity in the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint sufficient to rebut the presumptive validity of the affidavit (compare, Grunberg v George Assocs., 104 AD2d 745, 747, with Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [447]*447County (Diane Lebedeff, J.) entered June 30, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendant has not shown any meritorious defenses warranting relief from the default judgment under CPLR 5015 (a) (1). We also agree with the IAS Court that defendant did not submit proof indicative of an irregularity in the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint sufficient to rebut the presumptive validity of the affidavit (compare, Grunberg v George Assocs., 104 AD2d 745, 747, with Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 446, 604 N.Y.S.2d 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioners-of-the-state-insurance-fund-v-fisher-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack