De Santis v. Sgambellone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Santis v. Sgambellone

275 A.D.2d 890

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

DecidedMay 11, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 890 (De Santis v. Sgambellone) 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

De Santis v. Sgambellone, 275 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The application made was to vacate the order and warrant. Even though it be considered as a motion to open the default, the papers on which it was founded are insufficient. Such an application should have contained a proposed answer or, in the alternative, an offer to pay the accumulated rent, with costs, into court. As no answer was interposed, there was no issue to be tried and the order should have provided for the payment into court of the accumulated rent. Although we find it necessary to reverse the orders made, we see no reason why the court should not entertain a new application to open the default on proper papers. All concur. (The order and amended order vacate a final order and warrant of eviction previously granted to petitioner.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The application made was to vacate the order and warrant. Even though it be considered as a motion to open the default, the papers on which it was founded are insufficient. Such an application should have contained a proposed answer or, in the alternative, an offer to pay the accumulated rent, with costs, into court. As no answer was interposed, there was no issue to be tried and the order should have provided for the payment into court of the accumulated rent. Although we find it necessary to reverse the orders made, we see no reason why the court should not entertain a new application to open the default on proper papers. All concur. (The order and amended order vacate a final order and warrant of eviction previously granted to petitioner.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-santis-v-sgambellone-nyappdiv-1949.