Warren v. James

267 A.D.2d 379, 700 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13230

This text of 267 A.D.2d 379 (Warren v. James) 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
Warren v. James, 267 A.D.2d 379, 700 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that a deed dated May 21, 1996, conveying a parcel of real property to the defendant Virginia James is null and void, the defendant Vintage Abstract Corp. appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated February 25, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a judgment against it upon its default in answering the complaint, and denied its cross motion for an extension of time in which to answer, (2) an order of the same court, dated April 6, 1999, which modified the order dated February 25, 1999, to the [380]*380extent of correcting the caption thereof, and (3) an order of the same court, dated April 19, 1999, which denied its motion, inter alia, to renew the prior motion and cross motion.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 6, 1999, is dismissed, as the appellant is not aggrieved thereby (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the orders dated February 25, 1999, and April 19, 1999, are affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a judgment upon a default in failing to serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see, Santiago v Siega, 255 AD2d 306; Pumarejo-Garcia v McDonough, 242 AD2d 374). We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to make the requisite showing. In addition, under the circumstances, we conclude that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to renew. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pumarejo-Garcia v. McDonough
242 A.D.2d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Santiago v. Siega
255 A.D.2d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 A.D.2d 379, 700 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-james-nyappdiv-1999.