Fred Weinkauff, Inc. v. Giacopelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fred Weinkauff, Inc. v. Giacopelli

114 A.D.2d 837, 494 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53848

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 837 (Fred Weinkauff, Inc. v. Giacopelli) 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

Fred Weinkauff, Inc. v. Giacopelli, 114 A.D.2d 837, 494 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover payment for goods sold and delivered in the amount of $28,819.88, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated May 24, 1984, which granted defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment upon condition that defendants’ attorney pay to plaintiff’s attorney the sum of $350.

Order modified, as a matter of discretion, by providing that as a further condition of the vacatur, the judgment shall stand as security pending the disposition of the action. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to open the default judgment entered against them. However, under the circumstances herein, we find that the judgment should stand as security pending the disposition of the action (see, e.g., Rooney Pace, Inc. v Braverman, 74 AD2d 555). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover payment for goods sold and delivered in the amount of $28,819.88, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated May 24, 1984, which granted defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment upon condition that defendants’ attorney pay to plaintiff’s attorney the sum of $350.

Order modified, as a matter of discretion, by providing that as a further condition of the vacatur, the judgment shall stand as security pending the disposition of the action. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to open the default judgment entered against them. However, under the circumstances herein, we find that the judgment should stand as security pending the disposition of the action (see, e.g., Rooney Pace, Inc. v Braverman, 74 AD2d 555). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 837, 494 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fred-weinkauff-inc-v-giacopelli-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack