Weinberger v. Holubar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinberger v. Holubar

21 A.D.3d 411, 799 N.Y.S.2d 428

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

DecidedAugust 8, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 411 (Weinberger v. Holubar) 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

Weinberger v. Holubar, 21 A.D.3d 411, 799 N.Y.S.2d 428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated June 25, 2004, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To successfully oppose the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in answering and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Albano v Nus Holding Corp., 233 AD2d 280, 281 [1996]). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion (see Eckna v Kesselman, 11 AD3d 507 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, 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 defamation, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated June 25, 2004, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To successfully oppose the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in answering and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Albano v Nus Holding Corp., 233 AD2d 280, 281 [1996]). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion (see Eckna v Kesselman, 11 AD3d 507 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 411, 799 N.Y.S.2d 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinberger-v-holubar-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack