Potenza Contracting Corp. v. Pizzond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Potenza Contracting Corp. v. Pizzond

39 A.D.2d 555, 331 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4994

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

DecidedApril 10, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 555 (Potenza Contracting Corp. v. Pizzond) 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

Potenza Contracting Corp. v. Pizzond, 39 A.D.2d 555, 331 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 2, 1971, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to set aside a default judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and matter is remanded to Special Term for a hearing on the issues raised by the motion papers. If on such hearing, it be found that service was proper, the court should then consider whether defendant’s default was deliberate, and whether his application to open his default showed a meritorious defense. In our opinion, the Special Term was in error when it stated in its memorandum that defendant did not deny receiving the process in the mail. Under the circumstances, determination of the conflicting allegations contained in the respective affidavits of the parties must be determined at a hearing (cf. Kirkeby-Natus Corp. v. Gevinson, 33 A D 2d 883; Levine v. Levy, 29 A D 2d 827, CPLR 2218). Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 2, 1971, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to set aside a default judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and matter is remanded to Special Term for a hearing on the issues raised by the motion papers. If on such hearing, it be found that service was proper, the court should then consider whether defendant’s default was deliberate, and whether his application to open his default showed a meritorious defense. In our opinion, the Special Term was in error when it stated in its memorandum that defendant did not deny receiving the process in the mail. Under the circumstances, determination of the conflicting allegations contained in the respective affidavits of the parties must be determined at a hearing (cf. Kirkeby-Natus Corp. v. Gevinson, 33 A D 2d 883; Levine v. Levy, 29 A D 2d 827, CPLR 2218). Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 555, 331 N.Y.S.2d 895, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potenza-contracting-corp-v-pizzond-nyappdiv-1972.