Villetto v. Terio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Villetto v. Terio

146 A.D.2d 697, 538 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 631

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 23, 1989·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— In a breach of contract action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), dated April 27, 1988, which denied his motion to vacate a default judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Our review of the record reveals that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default (see, Skidelsky v Merendino, 133 AD2d 149). Therefore, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to deny his motion to vacate the default judgment. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a breach of contract action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.), dated April 27, 1988, which denied his motion to vacate a default judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Our review of the record reveals that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default (see, Skidelsky v Merendino, 133 AD2d 149). Therefore, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to deny his motion to vacate the default judgment. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Villetto v. Terio, 146 A.D.2d 697, 538 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

146 A.D.2d 697 (Villetto v. Terio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related