Perez v. Villa Josefa Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Villa Josefa Realty Corp.

293 A.D.2d 306, 739 N.Y.S.2d 574, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3584

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

DecidedApril 9, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 306 (Perez v. Villa Josefa Realty Corp.) 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

Perez v. Villa Josefa Realty Corp., 293 A.D.2d 306, 739 N.Y.S.2d 574, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about September 7, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for vacatur of a default judgment entered December 13, 2000, upon payment to plaintiff of $1,055 in costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant was required to show both a meritorious defense and reasonable excuse for the default (see, Brusco v St. Clare’s Hosp. & Health Ctr., 128 AD2d 390, 391, lv denied 70 NY2d 606, appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 692). Plaintiff does not dispute on appeal that defendant showed a meritorious defense. Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to disturb the motion court’s acceptance of defendant’s excuse, which acceptance was within its discretion (see, Hunter v Enquirer-Star, Inc., 210 AD2d 32, 33). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about September 7, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for vacatur of a default judgment entered December 13, 2000, upon payment to plaintiff of $1,055 in costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant was required to show both a meritorious defense and reasonable excuse for the default (see, Brusco v St. Clare’s Hosp. & Health Ctr., 128 AD2d 390, 391, lv denied 70 NY2d 606, appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 692). Plaintiff does not dispute on appeal that defendant showed a meritorious defense. Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to disturb the motion court’s acceptance of defendant’s excuse, which acceptance was within its discretion (see, Hunter v Enquirer-Star, Inc., 210 AD2d 32, 33). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 306, 739 N.Y.S.2d 574, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-villa-josefa-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack