Guggenheim v. Guggenheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guggenheim v. Guggenheim

178 A.D.2d 136, 576 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15238

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 136 (Guggenheim v. Guggenheim) 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

Guggenheim v. Guggenheim, 178 A.D.2d 136, 576 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered October 25, 1990, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion seeking, among other things, vacatur of a judgment awarding plaintiff $83,280, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to enforce support obligations under a separation agreement, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, contending that defendant had not paid support in nearly four years, and was refusing to pay for certain expenses of the children as required under the agreement. When defendant did not respond to the motion, IAS granted plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability and set the matter down for an assessment of damages. After a hearing, IAS awarded plaintiff a judgment of $83,280. Defendant then appealed, claiming that he was unaware of both the order granting summary judgment and the hearing directed therein. He asserted that he never received notices in the mail concerning these and other aspects of this proceeding, perhaps because the mailings did not contain his correct apartment number and zip code. IAS, however, found defendant’s "bare allega[137]*137tions * * * of no notice * * * unpersuasive”, and that he did not show a meritorious defense, and denied his motion to vacate the judgment.

We too are unpersuaded that defendant did not receive the mailings, none of which was returned to the sender as undeliverable. Nor did defendant show a meritorious defense. Accordingly, there was no basis for vacating the judgment under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered October 25, 1990, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion seeking, among other things, vacatur of a judgment awarding plaintiff $83,280, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to enforce support obligations under a separation agreement, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, contending that defendant had not paid support in nearly four years, and was refusing to pay for certain expenses of the children as required under the agreement. When defendant did not respond to the motion, IAS granted plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability and set the matter down for an assessment of damages. After a hearing, IAS awarded plaintiff a judgment of $83,280. Defendant then appealed, claiming that he was unaware of both the order granting summary judgment and the hearing directed therein. He asserted that he never received notices in the mail concerning these and other aspects of this proceeding, perhaps because the mailings did not contain his correct apartment number and zip code. IAS, however, found defendant’s "bare allega[137]*137tions * * * of no notice * * * unpersuasive”, and that he did not show a meritorious defense, and denied his motion to vacate the judgment.

We too are unpersuaded that defendant did not receive the mailings, none of which was returned to the sender as undeliverable. Nor did defendant show a meritorious defense. Accordingly, there was no basis for vacating the judgment under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 136, 576 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guggenheim-v-guggenheim-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack