In re the Estate of Shapiro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Shapiro

26 A.D.3d 440, 808 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 440 (In re the Estate of Shapiro) 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

In re the Estate of Shapiro, 26 A.D.3d 440, 808 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix awards of attorney’s fees, Martin Shapiro appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated September 15, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate his default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate a default, a movant must establish both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious claim or defense (see Security Pac. Natl. Trust Co. v Adams, 276 AD2d 688 [2000]; Exeter Holding v Morway Bldrs. & Devs., 270 AD2d 451 [2000]; Neuman v Greenblatt, 260 AD2d 616 [1999]). The appellant failed to offer either a reasonable excuse for his default or a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate the appellant’s default.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to SCPA 2110 to fix awards of attorney’s fees, Martin Shapiro appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated September 15, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate his default in appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate a default, a movant must establish both a reasonable excuse and a meritorious claim or defense (see Security Pac. Natl. Trust Co. v Adams, 276 AD2d 688 [2000]; Exeter Holding v Morway Bldrs. & Devs., 270 AD2d 451 [2000]; Neuman v Greenblatt, 260 AD2d 616 [1999]). The appellant failed to offer either a reasonable excuse for his default or a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate the appellant’s default.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 440, 808 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-shapiro-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack