Coulter v. Town of Highlands

26 A.D.3d 456, 809 N.Y.S.2d 466
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 28, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 456 (Coulter v. Town of Highlands) 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
Coulter v. Town of Highlands, 26 A.D.3d 456, 809 N.Y.S.2d 466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a stipulation of settlement, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated November 3, 2004, which denied its motion to vacate a judgment of the same court [457]*457entered May 13, 2004, after an inquest, upon its failure to appear or answer, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $210,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant moved to vacate a default judgment entered against it after it failed to answer or appear. “The decision as to the setting aside of a default in answering is generally left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, the exercise of which will generally not be disturbed if there is support in the record therefor” (MacMarty, Inc. v Scheller, 201 AD2d 706, 707 [1994]). The defendant failed to offer any reasonable excuse for its default and thus the court properly denied that branch of its motion to vacate which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (see Booth v Hawk Contrs., 259 AD2d 577 [1999]; see also Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067 [2005]; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823 [2005]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs’ failure to submit an affidavit of the facts or a verified complaint in accordance with CPLR 3215 (f) did not render the default judgment a “nullity,” or otherwise divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to enter a judgment (see Roberts v Jacob, 278 AD2d 297 [2000]; Bass v Wexler, 277 AD2d 266 [2000]; Freccia v Carullo, 93 AD2d 281 [1983]). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to vacatur of the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal. Florio, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Zaidman v. Zaidman
90 A.D.3d 1035 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Midfirst Bank v. Al-Rahman
81 A.D.3d 797 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Jackson v. Professional Transportation Corp.
81 A.D.3d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Neuman v. Zurich North America
36 A.D.3d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Araujo v. Aviles
33 A.D.3d 830 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.3d 456, 809 N.Y.S.2d 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coulter-v-town-of-highlands-nyappdiv-2006.