Malhado v. Cordani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malhado v. Cordani

153 A.D.2d 673, 544 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11006

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

DecidedAugust 21, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 153 A.D.2d 673 (Malhado v. Cordani) 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

Malhado v. Cordani, 153 A.D.2d 673, 544 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (DiTucci, J.), dated February 22, 1988, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment by confession entered November 17, 1986, and declared the underlying promissory note void.

Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is denied, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to commence a plenary action.

A person seeking to vacate a confession of judgment and judgment entered thereon must commence a plenary action for that relief (see, Burtner v Burtner, 144 AD2d 417; Affenita v Long Indus., 133 AD2d 727, 728; Wilk v Cohen, 131 AD2d 466). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion without prejudice to his right to commence an action seeking to set aside the confession of judgment and to vacate the judgment entered thereon. Kooper, J. P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (DiTucci, J.), dated February 22, 1988, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment by confession entered November 17, 1986, and declared the underlying promissory note void.

Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is denied, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to commence a plenary action.

A person seeking to vacate a confession of judgment and judgment entered thereon must commence a plenary action for that relief (see, Burtner v Burtner, 144 AD2d 417; Affenita v Long Indus., 133 AD2d 727, 728; Wilk v Cohen, 131 AD2d 466). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion without prejudice to his right to commence an action seeking to set aside the confession of judgment and to vacate the judgment entered thereon. Kooper, J. P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A.D.2d 673, 544 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malhado-v-cordani-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack