Gavalas v. Podelson
This text of 297 A.D.2d 535 (Gavalas v. Podelson) 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.
Opinion
[536]*536A default judgment was not pursued within one year of the defendants-appellants’ failure to respond to plaintiffs summons with notice. Thereafter, in response to defendants-appellants’ resulting motion to dismiss, the standard was not met pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted defendants-appellants’ motion and dismissed the underlying action insofar as asserted against them (see Hoppenfeld v Hoppenfeld, 220 AD2d 302; contrast Truong v All Pro Air Delivery, 278 AD2d 45). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
297 A.D.2d 535, 746 N.Y.2d 902, 746 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gavalas-v-podelson-nyappdiv-2002.