Pellegrino v. Romaz Properties, Ltd.
This text of 278 A.D.2d 466 (Pellegrino v. Romaz Properties, Ltd.) 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.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Romaz Properties, Ltd., Carmela M. Romeo a/k/a Carmela M. Holland, and Robert Romeo appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated February 28, 2000, which denied their motion to vacate their default in appearing and answering the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to vacate their default in appearing or answering, given their failure to demonstrate excusable delay (see, Martyn v Jones, 166 AD2d 508). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
278 A.D.2d 466, 718 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pellegrino-v-romaz-properties-ltd-nyappdiv-2000.