Silverman & Weinraub v. Gillon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverman & Weinraub v. Gillon

1 A.D.3d 142, 766 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11627

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 142 (Silverman & Weinraub v. Gillon) 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

Silverman & Weinraub v. Gillon, 1 A.D.3d 142, 766 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered August 29, 2002, which, in this action seeking the recovery of legal fees, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment entered against him on default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant has supplied no documentary evidence to support his claim that plaintiff gave him a written estimate of the cost of legal services that was substantially less than the amount for which plaintiff recovered judgment (cf. Herrick Feinstein, LLP v Stamm, 297 AD2d 477 [2002]). Therefore, defendant has failed to make the necessary showing that he has a meritorious defense to the action to support vacating the default judgment (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see Mediavilla v Gurman, 272 AD2d 146, [143]*143148 [2000]; Hunter v Enquirer/Star, Inc., 210 AD2d 32, 33 [1994]). Even if a meritorious defense could be discerned, defendant has failed to proffer any excuse for the untimely service of his answer and, in the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay, the denial of defendant’s motion was a provident exercise of discretion (Gerlin v J. Homann Trucking, 303 AD2d 262 [2003]). Concur — Nardelli, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered August 29, 2002, which, in this action seeking the recovery of legal fees, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment entered against him on default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant has supplied no documentary evidence to support his claim that plaintiff gave him a written estimate of the cost of legal services that was substantially less than the amount for which plaintiff recovered judgment (cf. Herrick Feinstein, LLP v Stamm, 297 AD2d 477 [2002]). Therefore, defendant has failed to make the necessary showing that he has a meritorious defense to the action to support vacating the default judgment (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see Mediavilla v Gurman, 272 AD2d 146, [143]*143148 [2000]; Hunter v Enquirer/Star, Inc., 210 AD2d 32, 33 [1994]). Even if a meritorious defense could be discerned, defendant has failed to proffer any excuse for the untimely service of his answer and, in the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay, the denial of defendant’s motion was a provident exercise of discretion (Gerlin v J. Homann Trucking, 303 AD2d 262 [2003]). Concur — Nardelli, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 142, 766 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-weinraub-v-gillon-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack