Nadel v. Breitfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nadel v. Breitfeld

188 A.D.2d 645, 592 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14619

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 645 (Nadel v. Breitfeld) 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

Nadel v. Breitfeld, 188 A.D.2d 645, 592 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful termination of the plaintiffs’ lease, the defendant Lawrence E. Breitfeld appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), entered November 2, 1990, which denied his motion to vacate a default judgment previously entered in favor of the plaintiff.

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

Given the repeated neglect on the part of the appellant’s attorney, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414; Singer v Singer, 136 AD2d 695; Cobbs v Run Tr., Ill AD2d 363). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller and Santucci, 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 wrongful termination of the plaintiffs’ lease, the defendant Lawrence E. Breitfeld appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), entered November 2, 1990, which denied his motion to vacate a default judgment previously entered in favor of the plaintiff.

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

Given the repeated neglect on the part of the appellant’s attorney, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the default judgment (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414; Singer v Singer, 136 AD2d 695; Cobbs v Run Tr., Ill AD2d 363). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 645, 592 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nadel-v-breitfeld-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack