Rooney Pace, Inc. v. Braverman

74 A.D.2d 555, 425 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10175
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 28, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 555 (Rooney Pace, Inc. v. Braverman) 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
Rooney Pace, Inc. v. Braverman, 74 A.D.2d 555, 425 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 23, 1979, granting defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of conditioning vacatur of the default upon payment of $250 costs by defendant to plaintiff within 20 days after service upon defendant of a copy of the order to be entered herein, together with notice of entry therein, and with the judgment to stand as security, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and disbursements. In the event such condition is not complied with, then order reversed, with costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 5, 1979, denying plaintiff’s motion to modify the prior order of said court entered August 23, 1979, unanimously reversed and the motion granted to the extent of conditioning vacatur of the default as hereinabove indicated, without costs and disbursements. On this record we conclude that Special Term properly determined that the defendant’s default was excusable and should be opened. However, it was an improvident exercise of discretion not to impose, as further conditions to the granting of such relief, that the judgment shall stand as security pending the final disposition of the action and that defendant pay plaintiff $250 as a penalty for his neglect (see Limco Mfg. Corp. v Mattiace Inds., 67 AD2d 939; Treitel v Arnold Chait, Ltd., 20 AD2d 711). Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.

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

Related

C G Ltd. Partnership v. Kingsbridge Heights Care Center, Inc.
47 Misc. 3d 41 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Ocuto Blacktop & Paving Co. v. Trataros Construction, Inc.
277 A.D.2d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Mark III Associates, Inc. v. HEC Engineering Co.
148 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Fred Weinkauff, Inc. v. Giacopelli
114 A.D.2d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A.D.2d 555, 425 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rooney-pace-inc-v-braverman-nyappdiv-1980.