Kanarick v. Myshkoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kanarick v. Myshkoff

299 A.D.2d 169, 753 N.Y.S.2d 363, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10599

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

DecidedNovember 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 169 (Kanarick v. Myshkoff) 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

Kanarick v. Myshkoff, 299 A.D.2d 169, 753 N.Y.S.2d 363, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 10, 2001, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment confirming an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied respondent-appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment. Appellant failed to either present a reasonable excuse for his default in responding to the motion to confirm the award or to demonstrate that the arbitration award should be vacated or modified on any of the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (see Goncalves v Stuyvesant Dev. Assoc., 232 AD2d 275). Although appellant claims that certain papers should have been served on his attorney rather than himself, the record fails to support his assertion that he was represented by counsel during the relevant periods, and in fact contains appellant’s own reference to his pro se status. Concur — Tom, J.P., Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 10, 2001, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment confirming an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly denied respondent-appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment. Appellant failed to either present a reasonable excuse for his default in responding to the motion to confirm the award or to demonstrate that the arbitration award should be vacated or modified on any of the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (see Goncalves v Stuyvesant Dev. Assoc., 232 AD2d 275). Although appellant claims that certain papers should have been served on his attorney rather than himself, the record fails to support his assertion that he was represented by counsel during the relevant periods, and in fact contains appellant’s own reference to his pro se status. Concur — Tom, J.P., Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 169, 753 N.Y.S.2d 363, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanarick-v-myshkoff-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack