Zurel U.S.A., Inc. v. Lachowicz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zurel U.S.A., Inc. v. Lachowicz

248 A.D.2d 624, 669 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2885

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 624 (Zurel U.S.A., Inc. v. Lachowicz) 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

Zurel U.S.A., Inc. v. Lachowicz, 248 A.D.2d 624, 669 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52, Susan Lachowicz appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated February 5, 1997, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated November 27, 1996, in the principal sum of $19,525.91 insofar as entered against her upon her default in answering the petition.

[625]*625Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment dated November 27, 1996, insofar as entered against her upon her default. The appellant did not demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for her default or a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599; Peterson v Scandurra Trucking Co., 226 AD2d 691; Lener v Club Med, 168 AD2d 433).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52, Susan Lachowicz appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated February 5, 1997, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated November 27, 1996, in the principal sum of $19,525.91 insofar as entered against her upon her default in answering the petition.

[625]*625Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment dated November 27, 1996, insofar as entered against her upon her default. The appellant did not demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for her default or a meritorious defense (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599; Peterson v Scandurra Trucking Co., 226 AD2d 691; Lener v Club Med, 168 AD2d 433).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 624, 669 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zurel-usa-inc-v-lachowicz-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack