State v. Senhouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Senhouse

271 A.D.2d 523, 706 N.Y.S.2d 353, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4065

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 523 (State v. Senhouse) 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

State v. Senhouse, 271 A.D.2d 523, 706 N.Y.S.2d 353, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Roger Senhouse appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated March 29, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered April 28, 1995, upon his failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant did not establish both a reasonable excuse for his default and the existence of a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to vacate his default (see, Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Walker, 255 AD2d 381; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Orlando v Corning Inc., 213 AD2d 464; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Roger Senhouse appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated March 29, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered April 28, 1995, upon his failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant did not establish both a reasonable excuse for his default and the existence of a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to vacate his default (see, Matter of Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Walker, 255 AD2d 381; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Orlando v Corning Inc., 213 AD2d 464; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 523, 706 N.Y.S.2d 353, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-senhouse-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack