Gurda v. Mullins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gurda v. Mullins

287 A.D.2d 596, 731 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9851

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 596 (Gurda v. Mullins) 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

Gurda v. Mullins, 287 A.D.2d 596, 731 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated September 15, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment entered June 19, 2000, upon his default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment entered on his default as the defendant failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Hecht v Bass Rest., 267 AD2d 279).

In light of this determination, the defendant’s remaining contention is academic. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, 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 malicious prosecution, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated September 15, 2000, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment entered June 19, 2000, upon his default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment entered on his default as the defendant failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Hecht v Bass Rest., 267 AD2d 279).

In light of this determination, the defendant’s remaining contention is academic. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 596, 731 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gurda-v-mullins-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack