Hugyecz v. 99 Commercial Street, Inc.

222 A.D.2d 405, 635 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12559
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 4, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

222 A.D.2d 405 (Hugyecz v. 99 Commercial Street, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stewart v. Odunsi
264 A.D.2d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
American Home Assurance Co. v. Choudary
255 A.D.2d 346 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)