Gelfman v. Erdheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gelfman v. Erdheim

208 A.D.2d 464, 617 N.Y.S.2d 644

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 464 (Gelfman v. Erdheim) 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

Gelfman v. Erdheim, 208 A.D.2d 464, 617 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 14, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him on March 4, 1993, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the default since defendant failed to establish a meritorious [465]*465defense (see, United Indus. Corp. v Shreiber, 51 AD2d 688, 689, lv dismissed 39 NY2d 1015, cert denied 429 US 1023). The promissory note, drafted by defendant, was not usurious (General Obligations Law § 5-501), does not refer to any extrinsic condition and plaintiff presented proof of execution and the failure to make payments according to the note’s terms (see, Hackensack Cars v Beverly, 140 AD2d 254, lv dismissed 72 NY2d 1041). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 14, 1993, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him on March 4, 1993, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the default since defendant failed to establish a meritorious [465]*465defense (see, United Indus. Corp. v Shreiber, 51 AD2d 688, 689, lv dismissed 39 NY2d 1015, cert denied 429 US 1023). The promissory note, drafted by defendant, was not usurious (General Obligations Law § 5-501), does not refer to any extrinsic condition and plaintiff presented proof of execution and the failure to make payments according to the note’s terms (see, Hackensack Cars v Beverly, 140 AD2d 254, lv dismissed 72 NY2d 1041). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 464, 617 N.Y.S.2d 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gelfman-v-erdheim-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack