Nicastro v. Pegnia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicastro v. Pegnia

255 A.D.2d 951, 680 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12201

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 951 (Nicastro v. Pegnia) 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

Nicastro v. Pegnia, 255 A.D.2d 951, 680 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this action by plaintiff for breach of a real estate purchase contract, Supreme Court entered a default judgment against defendants for their failure to appear, as directed by the court, in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. Plaintiff’s motion was based on defendants’ failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over several years. Given the pattern of dilatory and obstructive conduct by defendants and the insufficiency of their excuse, we conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to vacate the default [952]*952judgment (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; cf., Voss Dental Lab v Surgitex, Inc., 210 AD2d 985). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, No-taro, J. — Vacate Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this action by plaintiff for breach of a real estate purchase contract, Supreme Court entered a default judgment against defendants for their failure to appear, as directed by the court, in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. Plaintiff’s motion was based on defendants’ failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over several years. Given the pattern of dilatory and obstructive conduct by defendants and the insufficiency of their excuse, we conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to vacate the default [952]*952judgment (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; cf., Voss Dental Lab v Surgitex, Inc., 210 AD2d 985). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, No-taro, J. — Vacate Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 951, 680 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicastro-v-pegnia-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack