Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins

281 A.D.2d 176, 721 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2231

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 6, 2001·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered January 11, 2000, which, in an action for defamation and tortious interference with contract in which counterclaims for tortious interference with business relations and unfair trade practices have been interposed, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendants’ brief, denied defendants’ motion to vacate a prior order granting plaintiffs motion for a default judgment as against the corporate defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court had previously directed the corporate defendant to appear by attorney, as required by CPLR 321 (a), within 30 days, or face default. Having failed to do so, the default judgment against it was properly granted. There is no merit to defendants’ argument that CCA 1809 (2) entitles the corporate defendant to appear herein by an authorized officer. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered January 11, 2000, which, in an action for defamation and tortious interference with contract in which counterclaims for tortious interference with business relations and unfair trade practices have been interposed, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendants’ brief, denied defendants’ motion to vacate a prior order granting plaintiffs motion for a default judgment as against the corporate defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court had previously directed the corporate defendant to appear by attorney, as required by CPLR 321 (a), within 30 days, or face default. Having failed to do so, the default judgment against it was properly granted. There is no merit to defendants’ argument that CCA 1809 (2) entitles the corporate defendant to appear herein by an authorized officer. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins, 281 A.D.2d 176, 721 N.Y.S.2d 524, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 176 (Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related