Meyer v. Parr Co. of Suffolk, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyer v. Parr Co. of Suffolk, Inc.

50 A.D.2d 927, 377 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12176

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 927 (Meyer v. Parr Co. of Suffolk, Inc.) 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

Meyer v. Parr Co. of Suffolk, Inc., 50 A.D.2d 927, 377 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In two actions to foreclose separate mortgages on real property, in each of which an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, was made appointing a referee to compute the amount due plaintiffs, upon defendants’ default in answering, defendants the Parr Company of Suffolk, Inc., and Suffolk Meadows Enterprises, Inc., appeal from separate orders (one in each action) of the same court, both entered October 2, 1975, which, inter alia, denied their respective motions to open their defaults. Orders affirmed, without costs. In our view, appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing excusable neglect and the existence of a meritorious defense. Consequently, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying the [928]*928motions. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

— In two actions to foreclose separate mortgages on real property, in each of which an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, was made appointing a referee to compute the amount due plaintiffs, upon defendants’ default in answering, defendants the Parr Company of Suffolk, Inc., and Suffolk Meadows Enterprises, Inc., appeal from separate orders (one in each action) of the same court, both entered October 2, 1975, which, inter alia, denied their respective motions to open their defaults. Orders affirmed, without costs. In our view, appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing excusable neglect and the existence of a meritorious defense. Consequently, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying the [928]*928motions. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 927, 377 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-parr-co-of-suffolk-inc-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack