Ortiz v. Medina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Medina

273 A.D.2d 9, 709 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6099

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

DecidedJune 1, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 9 (Ortiz v. Medina) 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

Ortiz v. Medina, 273 A.D.2d 9, 709 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York [10]*10County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered December 7, 1999, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them cannot be used as a means of vacating the default judgment resulting from defendants’ failure to serve an answer or appear. Defendants, who were well aware of the action against them, failed to challenge the court’s jurisdiction properly, by raising their objection either by motion or in an answer (see, CPLR 320, 3211 [a]). Were we to consider defendants’ jurisdictional argument, we would find it to be without merit, since the record demonstrates that both defendants were properly served.

Although defendants, in support of their motion for vacatur, advanced a meritorious defense, they failed to provide a valid excuse for their default and, accordingly, vacatur was properly denied (see, Ocasio v City of New York, 186 AD2d 520; Maese v Arkin, 187 AD2d 400). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York [10]*10County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered December 7, 1999, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them cannot be used as a means of vacating the default judgment resulting from defendants’ failure to serve an answer or appear. Defendants, who were well aware of the action against them, failed to challenge the court’s jurisdiction properly, by raising their objection either by motion or in an answer (see, CPLR 320, 3211 [a]). Were we to consider defendants’ jurisdictional argument, we would find it to be without merit, since the record demonstrates that both defendants were properly served.

Although defendants, in support of their motion for vacatur, advanced a meritorious defense, they failed to provide a valid excuse for their default and, accordingly, vacatur was properly denied (see, Ocasio v City of New York, 186 AD2d 520; Maese v Arkin, 187 AD2d 400). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 9, 709 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-medina-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack