Panchookian v. Huculiak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panchookian v. Huculiak

258 A.D.2d 460, 682 N.Y.S.2d 841

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 460 (Panchookian v. Huculiak) 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

Panchookian v. Huculiak, 258 A.D.2d 460, 682 N.Y.S.2d 841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about September 26, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment to the extent of permitting him to defend the action on the merits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for vacatur of a default judgment entered against him, made less than one year after the date of the judgment, was timely (CPLR 5015 [a]), and, as the record substantiates defendant’s contention, and the motion court’s finding, that defendant has a possibly meritorious defense to the action and a reasonable excuse for his default, the grant of the motion to the extent indicated was proper (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Frenchy’s Bar & Drill v United Intl. Ins. Co., 251 AD2d 177; Hunter v Enquirer/Star, Inc., 210 AD2d 32). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about September 26, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment to the extent of permitting him to defend the action on the merits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for vacatur of a default judgment entered against him, made less than one year after the date of the judgment, was timely (CPLR 5015 [a]), and, as the record substantiates defendant’s contention, and the motion court’s finding, that defendant has a possibly meritorious defense to the action and a reasonable excuse for his default, the grant of the motion to the extent indicated was proper (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Frenchy’s Bar & Drill v United Intl. Ins. Co., 251 AD2d 177; Hunter v Enquirer/Star, Inc., 210 AD2d 32). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 460, 682 N.Y.S.2d 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panchookian-v-huculiak-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack