From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Heller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 30, 1998
252 A.D.2d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

July 30, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Kane, J.).


The only issue that need be considered on this appeal by defendants from Supreme Court's order vacating the default judgment entered against plaintiff is whether plaintiff supported her motion with an adequate showing of a meritorious cause of action. In our view, Supreme Court correctly determined that the conclusory allegations of the complaint could not competently support a finding of merit (see, Peterson v. Scandurra Trucking Co., 226 A.D.2d 691, 692) but erred in its reliance upon plaintiffs bill of particulars, which was verified by plaintiffs attorney who had no personal knowledge of the facts (see, id.; Stokes v. McKeithan, 172 A.D.2d 1077; cf., Pastore v. Golub Corp., 184 A.D.2d 827, 828). Plaintiff having proffered no competent evidence to support a finding of merit, we conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting the motion.

Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied.


Summaries of

Brown v. Heller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 30, 1998
252 A.D.2d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Brown v. Heller

Case Details

Full title:EVELYN A. BROWN, Respondent, v. LYDIA V. HELLER et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jul 30, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 934 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 519

Citing Cases

Younger v. Spartan Chem. Co.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs merely submitted an affidavit of their attorney, accompanied by…