Kaiser v. J & S Realty, Inc.

173 A.D.2d 920, 569 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5309
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 2, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 920 (Kaiser v. J & S Realty, 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
Kaiser v. J & S Realty, Inc., 173 A.D.2d 920, 569 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), [921]*921entered March 15, 1990 in Sullivan County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it.

Plaintiffs commenced this action on April 15, 1988 by service of a summons and verified complaint upon the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306. By order dated June 17, 1988, Supreme Court granted a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Thereafter, defendant made an oral application to vacate the default judgment, apparently upon the ground that defendant was never served with the summons and complaint. Supreme Court granted the motion and plaintiffs appeal.

We reverse. While there appears to be no per se rule against oral motions (see, Matter of Shanty Hollow Corp. v Poladian, 23 AD2d 132, 133-134, affd 17 NY2d 536; Siegel, NY Prac § 243, at 363-364 [2d ed]), a movant must, nonetheless, present affidavits or other competent evidence in support of its factual assertions (see, Matter of Shanty Hollow Corp. v Poladian, supra; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2214:22, at 98). Here, it appears that defendant made no evidentiary showing. In any event, the record on appeal, stipulated to by defendant, contains no affidavits, sworn testimony or other competent evidence in support of defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment. As such, Supreme Court’s determination may not be sustained (see, Matter of Tirre v Bush Term. Co., 172 App Div 386, 391-392; 4 NY Jur 2d, Appellate Review, § 322, at 414; 1 Newman, New York Appellate Practice § 5.04 [1], at 5-18—5-19).

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Lucano
2024 NY Slip Op 50996(U) (Queens Surrogate's Court, 2024)
Matter of Inzer v. West Brighton Fire Dept., Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 5279 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Braun v. Cesareo
2019 NY Slip Op 1962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
M & C Brothers v. Torum
75 A.D.3d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re the Foreclosure of Tax Liens
43 A.D.3d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Carinha v. Carinha
178 Misc. 2d 635 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
LaGuardia v. City of New York
237 A.D.2d 257 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Smith
157 Misc. 2d 56 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 A.D.2d 920, 569 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaiser-v-j-s-realty-inc-nyappdiv-1991.