Torres v. G & L Chiaravalle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. G & L Chiaravalle

251 A.D.2d 651, 676 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7909

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

DecidedJune 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 651 (Torres v. G & L Chiaravalle) 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

Torres v. G & L Chiaravalle, 251 A.D.2d 651, 676 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered July 14, 1997, which granted the motion by the defendant Mercury/Excelum, Inc., to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in answering and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for counsel fees and sanctions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The movant presented a reasonable excuse for its default in interposing an answer and a meritorious defense (see, Arliss v Browar, 223 AD2d 569; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered July 14, 1997, which granted the motion by the defendant Mercury/Excelum, Inc., to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in answering and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for counsel fees and sanctions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The movant presented a reasonable excuse for its default in interposing an answer and a meritorious defense (see, Arliss v Browar, 223 AD2d 569; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 651, 676 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-g-l-chiaravalle-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack