National Learning Corp. v. Duramatic Press, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Learning Corp. v. Duramatic Press, Inc.

63 A.D.2d 695, 404 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11602

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

DecidedMay 15, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 695 (National Learning Corp. v. Duramatic Press, 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

National Learning Corp. v. Duramatic Press, Inc., 63 A.D.2d 695, 404 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and conversion, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 18, 1977, which, upon reargument, reinstated a default judgment in favor of plaintiff and denied defendant’s motion to vacate that judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. On this record, we believe that Special Term exercised its sound discretion in finding that defendant had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a meritorious defense to this action. We are also not persuaded by defendant’s argument that service upon it was never effectuated. We find that service was properly effectuated and regard defendant’s default as inexcusable. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Shapiro and Hargett, 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 breach of contract and conversion, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 18, 1977, which, upon reargument, reinstated a default judgment in favor of plaintiff and denied defendant’s motion to vacate that judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. On this record, we believe that Special Term exercised its sound discretion in finding that defendant had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a meritorious defense to this action. We are also not persuaded by defendant’s argument that service upon it was never effectuated. We find that service was properly effectuated and regard defendant’s default as inexcusable. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Shapiro and Hargett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 695, 404 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-learning-corp-v-duramatic-press-inc-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack