Macaluso v. Macaluso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macaluso v. Macaluso

120 A.D.3d 1205, 991 N.Y.S.2d 772

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 2014

Docket2013-00348

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1205 (Macaluso v. Macaluso) 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

Macaluso v. Macaluso, 120 A.D.3d 1205, 991 N.Y.S.2d 772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 716 to remove Santo F. Macaluso, Jr., as an officer and director of the defendant S&M Heating Corp., the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated October 2, 2012, as denied his motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment entered October 20, 2010, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 18, 2010, was in favor of the defendant Joseph Macaluso, as executor of the estate of Santo F. Macaluso, Jr., and against him individually, on the ground that it was entered against an improper party.

Ordered that the order dated October 2, 2012 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Where there is no legal or equitable basis to enter a judgment against a particular party, such judgment must be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) (see Mazelier v 634 W. 135, LLC, 22 AD3d 361, 364 [2005]). Here, however, the judgment entered October 20, 2010 was properly issued, pursuant to an order dated June 18, 2010, against the plaintiff individually, as a remedy for the plaintiffs failure to comply with his personal obligations under the parties’ stipulation of settlement. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, while he may have commenced this action “in the right of S&M Heating Corp.,” the record is clear that the corporation was not a party to the stipulation. Rather, the agreement, which was placed on the record in open court, provided that the plaintiff would discontinue the action and would receive certain benefits from, and undertake certain obligations to, his late brother, Santo F. Macaluso, Jr. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the judgment.

Rivera, J.P, Hall, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 716 to remove Santo F. Macaluso, Jr., as an officer and director of the defendant S&M Heating Corp., the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated October 2, 2012, as denied his motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment entered October 20, 2010, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 18, 2010, was in favor of the defendant Joseph Macaluso, as executor of the estate of Santo F. Macaluso, Jr., and against him individually, on the ground that it was entered against an improper party.

Ordered that the order dated October 2, 2012 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Where there is no legal or equitable basis to enter a judgment against a particular party, such judgment must be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) (see Mazelier v 634 W. 135, LLC, 22 AD3d 361, 364 [2005]). Here, however, the judgment entered October 20, 2010 was properly issued, pursuant to an order dated June 18, 2010, against the plaintiff individually, as a remedy for the plaintiffs failure to comply with his personal obligations under the parties’ stipulation of settlement. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, while he may have commenced this action “in the right of S&M Heating Corp.,” the record is clear that the corporation was not a party to the stipulation. Rather, the agreement, which was placed on the record in open court, provided that the plaintiff would discontinue the action and would receive certain benefits from, and undertake certain obligations to, his late brother, Santo F. Macaluso, Jr. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the judgment.

Rivera, J.P, Hall, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1205, 991 N.Y.S.2d 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macaluso-v-macaluso-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack