Gavalas v. Podelson

297 A.D.2d 535, 746 N.Y.2d 902, 746 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8378
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 17, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[536] A 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

Gavalas v. Podelson, 297 A.D.2d 535, 746 N.Y.2d 902, 746 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

297 A.D.2d 535 (Gavalas v. Podelson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Selective Auto Ins. Company of N.J. v. Nesbitt
2018 NY Slip Op 3616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Utak v. Commerce Bank Inc.
88 A.D.3d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)