Marcoux v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcoux v. Goldstein

201 A.D.2d 542, 609 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1266

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 542 (Marcoux v. Goldstein) 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

Marcoux v. Goldstein, 201 A.D.2d 542, 609 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enforce a judgment by confession, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered September 9, 1991, which denied his motion to vacate the judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the affidavit of confession of judgment did not, by its terms, prohibit its filing with the clerk before October 16, 1991. By its express terms the affidavit of confession of judgment authorized the plaintiff to file the judgment upon the defendant’s default. Since the defendant did default, the subsequent filing of the judgment was not improper (see, CPLR 3218 [b]; cf., Rae v Kestenberg, 23 AD2d 565, affd 16 NY2d 1023). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to enforce a judgment by confession, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered September 9, 1991, which denied his motion to vacate the judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the affidavit of confession of judgment did not, by its terms, prohibit its filing with the clerk before October 16, 1991. By its express terms the affidavit of confession of judgment authorized the plaintiff to file the judgment upon the defendant’s default. Since the defendant did default, the subsequent filing of the judgment was not improper (see, CPLR 3218 [b]; cf., Rae v Kestenberg, 23 AD2d 565, affd 16 NY2d 1023). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 542, 609 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcoux-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack