From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blitshteyn v. Mera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1989
151 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

June 12, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to vacate the default judgment since neither the defenses asserted nor the counterclaims were shown to be meritorious (see, Perellie v. Crimson's Rest., 108 A.D.2d 903; Arred Enters. Corp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 108 A.D.2d 624). Specifically, the defense of the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the mortgage contingency clause is both factually and legally baseless (see, Lane v. Penner, 150 A.D.2d 643), and the claimed Statute of Frauds violation (General Obligations Law § 5-703 Gen. Oblig. [2]) was untimely asserted and, hence, was waived (see, Marcoux v Marcoux, 123 A.D.2d 844; Barnum v. Frickey, 115 A.D.2d 977). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Blitshteyn v. Mera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1989
151 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Blitshteyn v. Mera

Case Details

Full title:BORIS BLITSHTEYN et al., Respondents, v. JOSE MERA et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jun 12, 1989

Citations

151 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
542 N.Y.S.2d 671