Stein v. DKA Restaurant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stein v. DKA Restaurant

297 A.D.2d 563, 747 N.Y.2d 157, 747 N.Y.S.2d 157, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8444

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 563 (Stein v. DKA Restaurant) 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

Stein v. DKA Restaurant, 297 A.D.2d 563, 747 N.Y.2d 157, 747 N.Y.S.2d 157, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion was properly denied upon a showing of a meritorious defense, and defendant’s attorney’s affirmation that he first received the summons and complaint along with the instant motion for a default judgment. Defendant’s attorney received the motion for a default only two months after plaintiffs service of process on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306, and one month after plaintiffs service of the instant motion on defendant. There is no indication that plaintiff was prejudiced by this short delay (see Higgins v Bellet Constr. Co., 287 AD2d 377). Concur— Wallach, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

The motion was properly denied upon a showing of a meritorious defense, and defendant’s attorney’s affirmation that he first received the summons and complaint along with the instant motion for a default judgment. Defendant’s attorney received the motion for a default only two months after plaintiffs service of process on the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306, and one month after plaintiffs service of the instant motion on defendant. There is no indication that plaintiff was prejudiced by this short delay (see Higgins v Bellet Constr. Co., 287 AD2d 377). Concur— Wallach, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 563, 747 N.Y.2d 157, 747 N.Y.S.2d 157, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-dka-restaurant-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack