Jarres v. Locurto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jarres v. Locurto

261 A.D.2d 511, 687 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5430

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 511 (Jarres v. Locurto) 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

Jarres v. Locurto, 261 A.D.2d 511, 687 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for sexual assault, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated May 20, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate an interlocutory judgment of the same court, dated February 2, 1998, entered upon his failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the interlocutory judgment entered against him upon his failure to appear or answer. The defendant established neither a reasonable excuse for his default nor a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Fennell v [512]*512Mason, 204 AD2d 599). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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 sexual assault, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated May 20, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate an interlocutory judgment of the same court, dated February 2, 1998, entered upon his failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the interlocutory judgment entered against him upon his failure to appear or answer. The defendant established neither a reasonable excuse for his default nor a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Fennell v [512]*512Mason, 204 AD2d 599). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 511, 687 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarres-v-locurto-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack