Rajn Corp. v. L&S Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rajn Corp. v. L&S Construction Co.

19 A.D.3d 158, 795 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5975

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

DecidedJune 7, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 158 (Rajn Corp. v. L&S Construction Co.) 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

Rajn Corp. v. L&S Construction Co., 19 A.D.3d 158, 795 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a prior default judgment of the same court and Justice, entered November 20, 2001, in the amount of $200,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants have not offered a reasonable excuse for their failure to oppose plaintiffs motion, pursuant to CELR 3126, to strike their answer (see Grieco v Walker, 8 AD3d 66 [2004]). Nor have they attempted to explain their failure and refusal to respond to court-ordered discovery, or their failure to appear at the inquest. In the absence of a reasonable excuse, denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment was a provident exercise of discretion (Silverman & Weinraub v Gillon, 1 AD3d 142 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a prior default judgment of the same court and Justice, entered November 20, 2001, in the amount of $200,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants have not offered a reasonable excuse for their failure to oppose plaintiffs motion, pursuant to CELR 3126, to strike their answer (see Grieco v Walker, 8 AD3d 66 [2004]). Nor have they attempted to explain their failure and refusal to respond to court-ordered discovery, or their failure to appear at the inquest. In the absence of a reasonable excuse, denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment was a provident exercise of discretion (Silverman & Weinraub v Gillon, 1 AD3d 142 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 158, 795 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rajn-corp-v-ls-construction-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack