FRE International v. Fishman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

FRE International v. Fishman

199 A.D.2d 64, 604 N.Y.S.2d 948

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 64 (FRE International v. Fishman) 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

FRE International v. Fishman, 199 A.D.2d 64, 604 N.Y.S.2d 948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 7, 1993, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to vacate a default judgment, and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion, inter alia, to compel defendants-respondents to furnish plaintiff with a promissory note for the balance allegedly due plaintiff with interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ nonreceipt of plaintiff’s complaint constitutes a reasonable excuse for their failure to answer, and we find that they also have a meritorious defense. Plaintiff’s application for an order directing defendants to furnish a note for the balance was properly denied, since no such relief had been requested in either of plaintiff’s pleadings, and plaintiff’s fraud claim, raised for the first time in its motion, is contested. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 7, 1993, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion to vacate a default judgment, and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion, inter alia, to compel defendants-respondents to furnish plaintiff with a promissory note for the balance allegedly due plaintiff with interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ nonreceipt of plaintiff’s complaint constitutes a reasonable excuse for their failure to answer, and we find that they also have a meritorious defense. Plaintiff’s application for an order directing defendants to furnish a note for the balance was properly denied, since no such relief had been requested in either of plaintiff’s pleadings, and plaintiff’s fraud claim, raised for the first time in its motion, is contested. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 64, 604 N.Y.S.2d 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fre-international-v-fishman-nyappdiv-1993.