Juliani v. Nahorai

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Juliani v. Nahorai

59 A.D.3d 300, 874 N.Y.S.2d 44

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 300 (Juliani v. Nahorai) 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

Juliani v. Nahorai, 59 A.D.3d 300, 874 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered January 11, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion to direct entry of judgment on a California judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff proceeded to enforce a foreign judgment by plenary action, authorized by CPLR 5406 as an additional option to the filing procedure in CPLR article 54, defendant was not prejudiced by the notice of motion stating that judgment was sought pursuant to article 54. Contrary to defendant’s contention, arguments he might have made in opposition to the summary judgment motion were foreclosed by the California court orders denying vacatur of his default, retaining jurisdiction in the face of his claimed lack of service and rejecting his defenses to the action and to procurement of the judgment (see Ionescu v Brancoveanu, 246 AD2d 414, 416-417 [1998]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 30031(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered January 11, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion to direct entry of judgment on a California judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff proceeded to enforce a foreign judgment by plenary action, authorized by CPLR 5406 as an additional option to the filing procedure in CPLR article 54, defendant was not prejudiced by the notice of motion stating that judgment was sought pursuant to article 54. Contrary to defendant’s contention, arguments he might have made in opposition to the summary judgment motion were foreclosed by the California court orders denying vacatur of his default, retaining jurisdiction in the face of his claimed lack of service and rejecting his defenses to the action and to procurement of the judgment (see Ionescu v Brancoveanu, 246 AD2d 414, 416-417 [1998]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 30031(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 300, 874 N.Y.S.2d 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juliani-v-nahorai-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack