Toledano v. Horowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toledano v. Horowitz

289 A.D.2d 397, 734 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12148

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 17, 2001·Published

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated December 21, 2000, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action upon her default in appearing at a hearing to determine whether the defendants were served with process.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The denial of the plaintiffs motion to vacate her default was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; Seven Acre Wood St. Assocs. v Wood, 286 AD2d 432). Friedmann, J. P., Smith, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated December 21, 2000, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action upon her default in appearing at a hearing to determine whether the defendants were served with process.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The denial of the plaintiffs motion to vacate her default was a provident exercise of discretion (see, Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; Seven Acre Wood St. Assocs. v Wood, 286 AD2d 432). Friedmann, J. P., Smith, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Toledano v. Horowitz, 289 A.D.2d 397, 734 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

289 A.D.2d 397 (Toledano v. Horowitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related