Czernicki v. Lawniczak

41 A.D.3d 418, 835 N.Y.S.2d 918
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 5, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 418 (Czernicki v. Lawniczak) 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
Czernicki v. Lawniczak, 41 A.D.3d 418, 835 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 9 for the partition of real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated October 18, 2004, which, inter alia, denied that branch of his cross motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3). which was to vacate an order of the same court (Alfano, J.H.O.) dated September 11, 2000, granting the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of the same court (Belen, J.) entered November 20, 1998, which, upon the defendant’s default in answering the complaint or appearing in the action, was in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the removal the defendant’s name from the deed to the real property.

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

The plaintiff unreasonably delayed making his cross motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate the order dated September 11, 2000, granting the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment (see Aames Capital Corp. v Davidsohn, 24 AD3d 474, 475 [2005]; Green Point Sav. Bank v Arnold, 260 AD2d 543, 544 [1999]). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant procured the vacatur of the default judgment by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct (see CPLR 5015 [a] [3]; Citicorp Vendor Fin., Inc. v Island Garden Basketball, Inc., 27 AD3d 608, 609 [2006]). Accordingly, the [419]*419Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs cross motion.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Czernicki v. Lawniczak
41 A.D.3d 419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 A.D.3d 418, 835 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/czernicki-v-lawniczak-nyappdiv-2007.