Stewart v. Odunsi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stewart v. Odunsi

264 A.D.2d 835, 695 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9393

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 835 (Stewart v. Odunsi) 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

Stewart v. Odunsi, 264 A.D.2d 835, 695 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover [836]*836possession of real property, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 1, 1998, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint (see, Fleetwood Park Corp. v Jerrick Waterproofing Co., 203 AD2d 238; Hugyecz v 99 Commercial St., 222 AD2d 405).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpre-served for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Goldstein, 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 [836]*836possession of real property, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated June 1, 1998, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint (see, Fleetwood Park Corp. v Jerrick Waterproofing Co., 203 AD2d 238; Hugyecz v 99 Commercial St., 222 AD2d 405).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpre-served for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 835, 695 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-odunsi-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack