Furon Construction, Inc. v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Furon Construction, Inc. v. Velez

209 A.D.2d 666, 619 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11746

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 666 (Furon Construction, Inc. v. Velez) 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

Furon Construction, Inc. v. Velez, 209 A.D.2d 666, 619 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated November 30, 1992, which denied her motion to vacate a default judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well-settled that a default judgment may be vacated in the sound discretion of the trial court upon the movant’s showing of an excusable default as well as a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Perellie v Crimson’s Rest., 108 AD2d 903; Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999; County of Nassau v Cedric Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 890; McCargar v Welser, 109 AD2d 1053). In the case at bar, the defendant failed to demonstrate either. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), dated November 30, 1992, which denied her motion to vacate a default judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well-settled that a default judgment may be vacated in the sound discretion of the trial court upon the movant’s showing of an excusable default as well as a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Perellie v Crimson’s Rest., 108 AD2d 903; Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999; County of Nassau v Cedric Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 890; McCargar v Welser, 109 AD2d 1053). In the case at bar, the defendant failed to demonstrate either. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 666, 619 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furon-construction-inc-v-velez-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack