Dreiner v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dreiner v. Consolidated Edison Co.

251 A.D.2d 24, 672 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6409

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

DecidedJune 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 24 (Dreiner v. Consolidated Edison Co.) 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

Dreiner v. Consolidated Edison Co., 251 A.D.2d 24, 672 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered April 24, 1997, denying the motion of defendant Co-Star Construction Co., Inc. to vacate the default judgment entered against it on June 18, 1996, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if we were to conclude that defendant had provided a reasonable excuse for its default, we would nonetheless affirm the denial of defendant’s motion for its vacatur in light of defendant’s failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The affidavit of defendant’s president, unsupported by any documentary proof, constitutes no more than a general denial of plaintiff’s allegations, and, as such, provides no basis upon which to conclude that there is merit to the defense defendant [25]*25would assert (see, Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188, 189-190). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered April 24, 1997, denying the motion of defendant Co-Star Construction Co., Inc. to vacate the default judgment entered against it on June 18, 1996, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if we were to conclude that defendant had provided a reasonable excuse for its default, we would nonetheless affirm the denial of defendant’s motion for its vacatur in light of defendant’s failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The affidavit of defendant’s president, unsupported by any documentary proof, constitutes no more than a general denial of plaintiff’s allegations, and, as such, provides no basis upon which to conclude that there is merit to the defense defendant [25]*25would assert (see, Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188, 189-190). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 24, 672 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dreiner-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack