TRES, Inc. v. Cheever Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

TRES, Inc. v. Cheever Development Corp.

213 A.D.2d 627, 624 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 627 (TRES, Inc. v. Cheever Development Corp.) 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

TRES, Inc. v. Cheever Development Corp., 213 A.D.2d 627, 624 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for breach of a joint venture agreement, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 22, 1993, which denied its motion to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated October 13, 1993, granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment upon the defendant’s default in opposing the motion.

[628]*628Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the defendant has not shown a reasonable excuse for its default in opposing the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, nor a meritorious defense, the court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the prior order entered upon the defendant’s default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693; Stewart v Warren, 134 AD2d 585). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for breach of a joint venture agreement, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 22, 1993, which denied its motion to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated October 13, 1993, granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment upon the defendant’s default in opposing the motion.

[628]*628Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the defendant has not shown a reasonable excuse for its default in opposing the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, nor a meritorious defense, the court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the prior order entered upon the defendant’s default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693; Stewart v Warren, 134 AD2d 585). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 627, 624 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tres-inc-v-cheever-development-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack