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

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

DecidedJuly 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 459 (Helen Keller Services for the Blind v. 510 Gates Ave., Inc.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 459, 614 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helen-keller-services-for-the-blind-v-510-gates-ave-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack