Helen Keller Services for the Blind v. 510 Gates Ave., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Helen Keller Services for the Blind v. 510 Gates Ave., Inc.

206 A.D.2d 459, 614 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7484

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 18, 1994·Published

Opinion

In an action to foreclose on a purchase money mortgage, the third-party defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 22, 1992, which denied the third-party defendant’s motion to vacate its default in answering the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Gray v B.R. Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 966; Almodovar v All State Gen. Bldg. & Remodeling Contrs., 166 AD2d 396). The failure by the third-party defendant to demonstrate a legally cognizable reason for its failure to timely submit an answer (see, e.g., Ungar v Holmes Protection, 87 AD2d 589) constituted sufficient cause for the Supreme Court’s refusal to vacate its default. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose on a purchase money mortgage, the third-party defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 22, 1992, which denied the third-party defendant’s motion to vacate its default in answering the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Gray v B.R. Trucking Co., 59 NY2d 966; Almodovar v All State Gen. Bldg. & Remodeling Contrs., 166 AD2d 396). The failure by the third-party defendant to demonstrate a legally cognizable reason for its failure to timely submit an answer (see, e.g., Ungar v Holmes Protection, 87 AD2d 589) constituted sufficient cause for the Supreme Court’s refusal to vacate its default. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Helen Keller Services for the Blind v. 510 Gates Ave., Inc., 206 A.D.2d 459, 614 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

206 A.D.2d 459 (Helen Keller Services for the Blind v. 510 Gates Ave., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related