Scuba Plus Sky, Ltd. v. Partridge Place Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scuba Plus Sky, Ltd. v. Partridge Place Corp.

201 A.D.2d 260, 608 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 816

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 260 (Scuba Plus Sky, Ltd. v. Partridge Place 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

Scuba Plus Sky, Ltd. v. Partridge Place Corp., 201 A.D.2d 260, 608 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered on or about June 20, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered November 21, 1991 in the amount of $175,350.50, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The conclusory affidavit of defendant’s attorney is insufficient to establish the necessary adequate defense on the merits pursuant to CPLR 5015 (see, Keeffe v Emory, 59 AD2d 856, 857). We therefore conclude that the IAS Court’s refusal to vacate the entry of default was not an improvident exercise of discretion.

The appellant’s additional arguments have been considered and rejected. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered on or about June 20, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered November 21, 1991 in the amount of $175,350.50, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The conclusory affidavit of defendant’s attorney is insufficient to establish the necessary adequate defense on the merits pursuant to CPLR 5015 (see, Keeffe v Emory, 59 AD2d 856, 857). We therefore conclude that the IAS Court’s refusal to vacate the entry of default was not an improvident exercise of discretion.

The appellant’s additional arguments have been considered and rejected. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 260, 608 N.Y.S.2d 826, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scuba-plus-sky-ltd-v-partridge-place-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack