Pagones v. Maddox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pagones v. Maddox

199 A.D.2d 483, 608 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12342

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 483 (Pagones v. Maddox) 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

Pagones v. Maddox, 199 A.D.2d 483, 608 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendant C. Vernon Mason appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered October 1, 1991, which denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the plaintiff’s motion for an order of preclusion and to compel discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate his default in opposing the plaintiff’s motion for an order of preclusion unless he complied with certain discovery demands. The appellant did not offer a reasonable excuse for his default (see, Bodi v Orciouli, 195 AD2d 841; American Sigol Corp. v Zicherman, 166 AD2d 628; Mantilla v Lewkowitz, 130 AD2d 557). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendant C. Vernon Mason appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered October 1, 1991, which denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the plaintiff’s motion for an order of preclusion and to compel discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate his default in opposing the plaintiff’s motion for an order of preclusion unless he complied with certain discovery demands. The appellant did not offer a reasonable excuse for his default (see, Bodi v Orciouli, 195 AD2d 841; American Sigol Corp. v Zicherman, 166 AD2d 628; Mantilla v Lewkowitz, 130 AD2d 557). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 483, 608 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagones-v-maddox-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack