Murphy v. Mazel & White Street Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Mazel & White Street Management, Inc.

289 A.D.2d 546, 735 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13050

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 546 (Murphy v. Mazel & White Street Management, 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

Murphy v. Mazel & White Street Management, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 546, 735 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated December 4, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate a judgment of the same court dated August 4, 1999, entered upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the judgment dated August 4, 1999, is reinstated.

A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in appearing or answering the complaint must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; FGB Realty Advisors v Norm-Rick Realty Corp., 227 AD2d 439; Cedeno v Wimbledon Bldg. Corp., 207 AD2d 297). Since the defendant failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense, its motion to vacate the judgment entered upon its default should have been denied (see, Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188, 190; Paul Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S. Purch. Serv., 126 AD2d 621). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated December 4, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate a judgment of the same court dated August 4, 1999, entered upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the judgment dated August 4, 1999, is reinstated.

A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in appearing or answering the complaint must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; FGB Realty Advisors v Norm-Rick Realty Corp., 227 AD2d 439; Cedeno v Wimbledon Bldg. Corp., 207 AD2d 297). Since the defendant failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense, its motion to vacate the judgment entered upon its default should have been denied (see, Peacock v Kalikow, 239 AD2d 188, 190; Paul Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S. Purch. Serv., 126 AD2d 621). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 546, 735 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-mazel-white-street-management-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack