DePiazzy v. Lakey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DePiazzy v. Lakey

10 A.D.3d 670, 781 N.Y.S.2d 744, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10929

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 670 (DePiazzy v. Lakey) 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

DePiazzy v. Lakey, 10 A.D.3d 670, 781 N.Y.S.2d 744, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10929 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, commenced in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and transferred to the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Weber, S.), dated November 22, 2002, as denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated August 30, 2002, entered upon their default in responding to three separate motions to dismiss the complaint made by the defendants Marlies Lakey, Charles G. Eichinger, and the Public Administrator of Suffolk County, respectively.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants personally to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In support of their motion to vacate a judgment entered upon their default in responding to motions to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiffs failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their default. Thus, the Surrogate’s Court’s denial of the motion was a provident exercise of discretion (see Ruppell v Hair Plus Beauty, 288 AD2d 205 [2001]; Montalvo v Nel Taxi Corp., 114 AD2d 494, 495 [1985]).

In light of our determination, the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are academic. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Spolzino, 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, commenced in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and transferred to the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Weber, S.), dated November 22, 2002, as denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated August 30, 2002, entered upon their default in responding to three separate motions to dismiss the complaint made by the defendants Marlies Lakey, Charles G. Eichinger, and the Public Administrator of Suffolk County, respectively.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants personally to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In support of their motion to vacate a judgment entered upon their default in responding to motions to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiffs failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their default. Thus, the Surrogate’s Court’s denial of the motion was a provident exercise of discretion (see Ruppell v Hair Plus Beauty, 288 AD2d 205 [2001]; Montalvo v Nel Taxi Corp., 114 AD2d 494, 495 [1985]).

In light of our determination, the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are academic. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 670, 781 N.Y.S.2d 744, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/depiazzy-v-lakey-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack