Wilk v. Wilk
225 A.D.2d 764, 639 N.Y.2d 946, 639 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3142
Opinion
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s cross motion to vacate his default (cf., Otto v Otto, 150 AD2d 57, 58). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wilk v. Wilk, 225 A.D.2d 764, 639 N.Y.2d 946, 639 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
225 A.D.2d 764 (Wilk v. Wilk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Otto v. Otto
150 A.D.2d 57 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)