Graham v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Graham v. Cohen

309 A.D.2d 897, 766 N.Y.S.2d 382

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 897 (Graham v. Cohen) 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

Graham v. Cohen, 309 A.D.2d 897, 766 N.Y.S.2d 382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), entered August 20, 2002, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in appearing at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A defendant attempting to vacate a default judgment must [898]*898establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333 [1994]). The defendant failed to satisfy either requirement. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), entered August 20, 2002, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate a judgment entered upon his default in appearing at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A defendant attempting to vacate a default judgment must [898]*898establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333 [1994]). The defendant failed to satisfy either requirement. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 897, 766 N.Y.S.2d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-cohen-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack