Princeton Venture Research, Inc. v. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, L. L. P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Princeton Venture Research, Inc. v. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, L. L. P.

256 A.D.2d 222, 682 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 222 (Princeton Venture Research, Inc. v. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, L. L. P.) 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

Princeton Venture Research, Inc. v. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, L. L. P., 256 A.D.2d 222, 682 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered September 17, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court’s vacatur of the judgment entered upon defendant’s default did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion since the record supports the court’s findings that defendant had a reasonable excuse for its default, which involved only a minimal delay, and had made the requisite showing of a meritorious defense (see, Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v Hersko, 246 AD2d 365). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered September 17, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court’s vacatur of the judgment entered upon defendant’s default did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion since the record supports the court’s findings that defendant had a reasonable excuse for its default, which involved only a minimal delay, and had made the requisite showing of a meritorious defense (see, Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v Hersko, 246 AD2d 365). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 222, 682 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/princeton-venture-research-inc-v-kaye-scholer-fierman-hays-handler-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack