Manhattan Vermeer Co. v. Guterman
179 A.D.2d 561
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 28, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
It is within the IAS court’s discretion to determine whether or not a party who claims not to have been properly served has shown a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Orimex Trading v Berman, 168 AD2d 263). Here, the record supports the IAS court’s conclusion that the appealing defendants did not show a reasonable excuse for their default, and indeed that the default was deliberate. Accordingly, the motion to [562] vacate the default was properly denied. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Kassal, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Manhattan Vermeer Co. v. Guterman, 179 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).
179 A.D.2d 561 (Manhattan Vermeer Co. v. Guterman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Community Network Service, Inc. v. Verizon New York, Inc.
63 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)