Housman v. Curzio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Housman v. Curzio

133 A.D.2d 69, 518 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49594

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 3, 1987·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated July 10, 1985, as upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Stolarik in his memorandum decision of January 22, 1985 at the Supreme Court, Rockland County. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated July 10, 1985, as upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Stolarik in his memorandum decision of January 22, 1985 at the Supreme Court, Rockland County. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Housman v. Curzio, 133 A.D.2d 69, 518 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

133 A.D.2d 69 (Housman v. Curzio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.