Lindenbaum v. KatzevMan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lindenbaum v. KatzevMan

125 A.D.2d 453, 509 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62746

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.2d 453 (Lindenbaum v. KatzevMan) 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

Lindenbaum v. KatzevMan, 125 A.D.2d 453, 509 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and for injunctive relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated August 29, 1985, which denied his motion to be relieved of his default in answering the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept [454]*454service of his answer, and (2) an order of the same court, entered October 30, 1985, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered October 30, 1985, is dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 29, 1985, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

Special Term correctly denied the defendant’s motion to be relieved of his default in answering the complaint herein since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse therefor and that he possessed a meritorious defense to the action. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, 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 breach of contract and for injunctive relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated August 29, 1985, which denied his motion to be relieved of his default in answering the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept [454]*454service of his answer, and (2) an order of the same court, entered October 30, 1985, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered October 30, 1985, is dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 29, 1985, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

Special Term correctly denied the defendant’s motion to be relieved of his default in answering the complaint herein since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse therefor and that he possessed a meritorious defense to the action. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 453, 509 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindenbaum-v-katzevman-nyappdiv-1986.