Pisanelli v. S & D Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pisanelli v. S & D Realty Corp.

151 A.D.2d 734, 543 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9183

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

DecidedJune 26, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 734 (Pisanelli v. S & D 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

Pisanelli v. S & D Realty Corp., 151 A.D.2d 734, 543 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover upon a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated January 27, 1988, which denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court (Bambrick, J.), dated January 8, 1986, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment upon the defendants’ noncompliance with a conditional order of preclusion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly declined to vacate the defendants’ default. The defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their long delay in seeking the relief requested or a meritorious defense to the action (see, Patron v Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 129 AD2d 572). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover upon a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated January 27, 1988, which denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court (Bambrick, J.), dated January 8, 1986, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment upon the defendants’ noncompliance with a conditional order of preclusion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly declined to vacate the defendants’ default. The defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their long delay in seeking the relief requested or a meritorious defense to the action (see, Patron v Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 129 AD2d 572). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 734, 543 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pisanelli-v-s-d-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack