Wynyard v. Antique Co. of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wynyard v. Antique Co. of New York, Inc.

247 A.D.2d 265, 668 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1400

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 265 (Wynyard v. Antique Co. of New York, Inc.) 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

Wynyard v. Antique Co. of New York, Inc., 247 A.D.2d 265, 668 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered September 17, 1996, which denied petitioners’ motion to vacate their default with respect to an order of the same court and Surrogate, entered on about January 5, 1995, granting respondent FIDES’ motion to dismiss the petition as against it on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the order entered on default since petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the default by submitting an affidavit by someone with personal knowledge of the material facts (see, Adefioye v Volunteers of Am., 222 AD2d 246). Neither any of the individual petitioners nor anyone from the law firm then representing them submitted an affidavit to substantiate petitioners’ claimed lack of notice of the forum non conveniens motion or of the hearing date announced in open court in the presence of former counsel (see, Morris v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 191 AD2d 682). The record establishes that petitioners were [266]*266represented by counsel during all relevant time periods, as well as the fact that notice of entry of the order entered on default was served on counsel of record. We also note that counsel for petitioners waited almost a year before moving to vacate the default although, in the interim, pretrial proceedings had occurred in connection with petitioners’ claims against the remaining respondents, such that respondent FIDES, which did not participate therein, would be prejudiced if the default were now opened (see, First Nationwide Bank v Calano, 223 AD2d 524).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered September 17, 1996, which denied petitioners’ motion to vacate their default with respect to an order of the same court and Surrogate, entered on about January 5, 1995, granting respondent FIDES’ motion to dismiss the petition as against it on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the order entered on default since petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the default by submitting an affidavit by someone with personal knowledge of the material facts (see, Adefioye v Volunteers of Am., 222 AD2d 246). Neither any of the individual petitioners nor anyone from the law firm then representing them submitted an affidavit to substantiate petitioners’ claimed lack of notice of the forum non conveniens motion or of the hearing date announced in open court in the presence of former counsel (see, Morris v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 191 AD2d 682). The record establishes that petitioners were [266]*266represented by counsel during all relevant time periods, as well as the fact that notice of entry of the order entered on default was served on counsel of record. We also note that counsel for petitioners waited almost a year before moving to vacate the default although, in the interim, pretrial proceedings had occurred in connection with petitioners’ claims against the remaining respondents, such that respondent FIDES, which did not participate therein, would be prejudiced if the default were now opened (see, First Nationwide Bank v Calano, 223 AD2d 524).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 265, 668 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wynyard-v-antique-co-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack