Melnick v. Khoroushi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melnick v. Khoroushi

57 A.D.3d 414, 869 N.Y.2d 500

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 414 (Melnick v. Khoroushi) 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

Melnick v. Khoroushi, 57 A.D.3d 414, 869 N.Y.2d 500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

A default is considered intentional when a party takes no steps to vacate it until after judgment has been entered against him (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]). Despite having been afforded ample opportunity to avoid the entry of default judgment, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for their default or a meritorious defense to the counterclaims asserted by defendants (see Granibras Granitos Brasileiros, Ltda. v Farber, 34 AD3d 230 [2006]).

Under the circumstances, this appeal is frivolous. Sanctions should be imposed, and the responding defendants should be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred on this appeal (see Tsabbar v Auld, 26 AD3d 233 [2006]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

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

A default is considered intentional when a party takes no steps to vacate it until after judgment has been entered against him (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]). Despite having been afforded ample opportunity to avoid the entry of default judgment, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for their default or a meritorious defense to the counterclaims asserted by defendants (see Granibras Granitos Brasileiros, Ltda. v Farber, 34 AD3d 230 [2006]).

Under the circumstances, this appeal is frivolous. Sanctions should be imposed, and the responding defendants should be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred on this appeal (see Tsabbar v Auld, 26 AD3d 233 [2006]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 414, 869 N.Y.2d 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melnick-v-khoroushi-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack