Erdheim v. Deutsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erdheim v. Deutsch

282 A.D.2d 428, 722 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267

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

DecidedApril 2, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 428 (Erdheim v. Deutsch) 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

Erdheim v. Deutsch, 282 A.D.2d 428, 722 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover legal fees, the [429]*429plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated November 23, 1999, which, inter alia, conditionally granted the defendant’s cross motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered January 15, 1999, upon the defendant’s default in complying with a stipulation between the parties, dated July 9, 1998.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s cross motion to vacate the judgment on condition that he pay the sum of $13,000 to the plaintiff’s escrow agent by a date certain (see, McGusty v McGusty, 268 AD2d 508; Siorek v Zablocki, 267 AD2d 299).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover legal fees, the [429]*429plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated November 23, 1999, which, inter alia, conditionally granted the defendant’s cross motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered January 15, 1999, upon the defendant’s default in complying with a stipulation between the parties, dated July 9, 1998.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s cross motion to vacate the judgment on condition that he pay the sum of $13,000 to the plaintiff’s escrow agent by a date certain (see, McGusty v McGusty, 268 AD2d 508; Siorek v Zablocki, 267 AD2d 299).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 428, 722 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erdheim-v-deutsch-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack