Pemberton v. Fuchs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pemberton v. Fuchs

57 A.D.3d 863, 869 N.Y.2d 347

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 23, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[864]*864The defendant was properly served with the plaintiffs motion to hold him in contempt (see Corpuel v Galasso, 240 AD2d 531 [1997]; Rothkopf v Rothkopf 191 AD2d 685 [1993]). On this motion to vacate his default in opposing that motion, he was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default in opposing the motion and a meritorious opposition to the motion (see Raciti v Sands Point Nursing Home, 54 AD3d 1014 [2008] Ayiku v Viteritti, 54 AD3d 789 [2008]; CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). He failed to do either.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

[864]*864The defendant was properly served with the plaintiffs motion to hold him in contempt (see Corpuel v Galasso, 240 AD2d 531 [1997]; Rothkopf v Rothkopf 191 AD2d 685 [1993]). On this motion to vacate his default in opposing that motion, he was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default in opposing the motion and a meritorious opposition to the motion (see Raciti v Sands Point Nursing Home, 54 AD3d 1014 [2008] Ayiku v Viteritti, 54 AD3d 789 [2008]; CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). He failed to do either.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Pemberton v. Fuchs, 57 A.D.3d 863, 869 N.Y.2d 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

57 A.D.3d 863 (Pemberton v. Fuchs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related