National Recovery System v. Weiss

226 A.D.2d 289, 641 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4521
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 25, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 289 (National Recovery System v. Weiss) 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 Recovery System v. Weiss, 226 A.D.2d 289, 641 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 12, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate his default in opposing a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the default, since he has failed to raise any genuine dispute as to the fact that that he was properly served with the summons, notice of motion and affirmation (see, Essex Credit Corp. v [290]*290Tarantini Assocs., 179 AD2d 973). The affidavit of service states that the papers were served on a certain date at defendant’s home address on a woman who identified herself as defendant’s housekeeper. Defendant denies that his housekeeper was served, but does not substantiate his assertion that the actual appearance of his housekeeper differs from the description provided in the affidavit of service, does not deny that the name of the housekeeper mentioned in the affidavit is . accurate, and fails to submit an affidavit from the housekeeper disputing that service was effected. Defendant also fails to advance a meritorious defense to the action. His vague assertion that any money he owed to plaintiff’s assignor has been repaid is insufficient in light of his failure to submit any documentation indicating that payments were made. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

New York City Hous. Auth. v. Dilligard
2025 NY Slip Op 32469(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Electric Insurance v. Grajower
256 A.D.2d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Peacock v. Kalikow
239 A.D.2d 188 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 A.D.2d 289, 641 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-recovery-system-v-weiss-nyappdiv-1996.