From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curto v. Mark Diehl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 2011
87 A.D.3d 1374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. CA 10-02024.

September 30, 2011.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (James H. Dillon, J.), dated December 17, 2009. The order granted the motion of defendants to vacate a default judgment and ordered plaintiff to provide discovery.

PATRICIA J. CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.

HAGELIN KENT LLC, BUFFALO (VICTOR M. WRIGHT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Lindley, Sconiers and Gorski, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment. Inasmuch as defendants had previously appeared in this action, they were entitled to receive notice of plaintiffs motion for a default judgment ( see CPLR 3215 [g] [1]; Nowak v Oklahoma League for Blind, 289 AD2d 995). Plaintiff failed to provide defendants with such notice, and thus her motion for a default judgment was defective. We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.


Summaries of

Curto v. Mark Diehl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 2011
87 A.D.3d 1374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Curto v. Mark Diehl

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA J. CURTO, Appellant, v. MARK DIEHL et al., Respondents. (Appeal…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 30, 2011

Citations

87 A.D.3d 1374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 6773
929 N.Y.S.2d 901