Paulino v. Café Billiards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paulino v. Café Billiards

63 A.D.3d 484, 879 N.Y.S.2d 713

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

DecidedJune 9, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 484 (Paulino v. Café Billiards) 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

Paulino v. Café Billiards, 63 A.D.3d 484, 879 N.Y.S.2d 713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered June 23, 2008, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, same court and Justice, entered December 3, 2007; order, same court (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered March 2, 2007, granting plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer; and order, same court and Justice, entered October 24, 2008, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendants’ motion to renew their motion to vacate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their repeated defaults or a meritorious defense to the cause of action (see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Bruno, 57 AD3d 362 [2008]; Slimani v Citibank, N.A., 47 AD3d 489 [2008]; cf. Small v Applebaum, 79 AD2d 572 [1980], appeal dismissed 53 NY2d 839 [1981]; see also CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Zeloufv Republic Natl. Bank of N.Y., 225 AD2d 419 [1996]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered June 23, 2008, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, same court and Justice, entered December 3, 2007; order, same court (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered March 2, 2007, granting plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer; and order, same court and Justice, entered October 24, 2008, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendants’ motion to renew their motion to vacate, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their repeated defaults or a meritorious defense to the cause of action (see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Bruno, 57 AD3d 362 [2008]; Slimani v Citibank, N.A., 47 AD3d 489 [2008]; cf. Small v Applebaum, 79 AD2d 572 [1980], appeal dismissed 53 NY2d 839 [1981]; see also CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Zeloufv Republic Natl. Bank of N.Y., 225 AD2d 419 [1996]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 484, 879 N.Y.S.2d 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paulino-v-cafe-billiards-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack