Hugyecz v. 99 Commercial Street, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hugyecz v. 99 Commercial Street, Inc.

222 A.D.2d 405, 635 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12559

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 405 (Hugyecz v. 99 Commercial Street, 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

Hugyecz v. 99 Commercial Street, Inc., 222 A.D.2d 405, 635 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover on an instrument, which was commenced by a motion for summary [406]*406judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated June 29, 1994, as denied its motion to vacate a judgment entered on its default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to offer a justifiable excuse for its default in this case. Thus, its motion to vacate the judgment entered on its default was properly denied (see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693, 695). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover on an instrument, which was commenced by a motion for summary [406]*406judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated June 29, 1994, as denied its motion to vacate a judgment entered on its default.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to offer a justifiable excuse for its default in this case. Thus, its motion to vacate the judgment entered on its default was properly denied (see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693, 695). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 405, 635 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hugyecz-v-99-commercial-street-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack