Maiocchi v. Paniccia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maiocchi v. Paniccia

201 A.D.2d 542, 609 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1265

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 542 (Maiocchi v. Paniccia) 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

Maiocchi v. Paniccia, 201 A.D.2d 542, 609 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover attorney’s fees, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated November 7, 1991, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered March 1, 1991, upon their default in answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment which had been entered against them. The defendants did not offer a reasonable excuse for their default or demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693; Pagones v Maddox, 199 AD2d 483; Matter of Astuto v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 198 AD2d 503; IBM Corp. v Camp, Dresser & McKee, 194 AD2d 645; Matter of United States Auto. Assn. v Steiger, 191 AD2d 496). Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover attorney’s fees, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated November 7, 1991, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered March 1, 1991, upon their default in answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment which had been entered against them. The defendants did not offer a reasonable excuse for their default or demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693; Pagones v Maddox, 199 AD2d 483; Matter of Astuto v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 198 AD2d 503; IBM Corp. v Camp, Dresser & McKee, 194 AD2d 645; Matter of United States Auto. Assn. v Steiger, 191 AD2d 496). Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 542, 609 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maiocchi-v-paniccia-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack