Vanderhoff v. Boutsikos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vanderhoff v. Boutsikos

209 A.D.2d 611, 619 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11551

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 611 (Vanderhoff v. Boutsikos) 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

Vanderhoff v. Boutsikos, 209 A.D.2d 611, 619 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, defamation, and wrongful eviction, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), entered February 24, 1993, which, upon renewal, granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered upon his default and directed the plaintiffs to accept his answer.

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

Upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment which had been entered against him. The application to renew was based on additional material facts not previously made known to the court and the defendant presented a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original application (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Moreover, the defendant presented a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Alert Med. Personnel v Rera, 203 AD2d 401). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, defamation, and wrongful eviction, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), entered February 24, 1993, which, upon renewal, granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered upon his default and directed the plaintiffs to accept his answer.

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

Upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment which had been entered against him. The application to renew was based on additional material facts not previously made known to the court and the defendant presented a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original application (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Moreover, the defendant presented a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Alert Med. Personnel v Rera, 203 AD2d 401). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 611, 619 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderhoff-v-boutsikos-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack