Montauk Automatic, Inc. v. Munhall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montauk Automatic, Inc. v. Munhall

201 A.D.2d 710, 608 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1708

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 710 (Montauk Automatic, Inc. v. Munhall) 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

Montauk Automatic, Inc. v. Munhall, 201 A.D.2d 710, 608 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated March 18, 1992, which denied its motion to vacate a prior order dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[711]*711The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to vacate its default in failing to oppose the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint. The plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and produced no affidavit establishing that its claim had merit (see, Bender & Bodnar v Nankin, 186 AD2d 524; Moody v Burgos, 151 AD2d 555). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated March 18, 1992, which denied its motion to vacate a prior order dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[711]*711The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to vacate its default in failing to oppose the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint. The plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and produced no affidavit establishing that its claim had merit (see, Bender & Bodnar v Nankin, 186 AD2d 524; Moody v Burgos, 151 AD2d 555). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 710, 608 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montauk-automatic-inc-v-munhall-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack