Tutuianu v. State of New York Department of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tutuianu v. State of New York Department of Social Services

242 A.D.2d 476, 663 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9012

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 476 (Tutuianu v. State of New York Department of Social Services) 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

Tutuianu v. State of New York Department of Social Services, 242 A.D.2d 476, 663 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about October 18, 1996, which granted respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We deem the notice of appeal to be an application for leave to appeal to this Court and grant it. We affirm upon findings that respondent’s default was due to an excusable misunderstanding as to the return date of the application, and that respondent has meritorious defenses going to jurisdiction as well as the merits. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about October 18, 1996, which granted respondent’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We deem the notice of appeal to be an application for leave to appeal to this Court and grant it. We affirm upon findings that respondent’s default was due to an excusable misunderstanding as to the return date of the application, and that respondent has meritorious defenses going to jurisdiction as well as the merits. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 476, 663 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tutuianu-v-state-of-new-york-department-of-social-services-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack