From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Citibank, N.A. v. Amato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 2000
270 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued February 1, 2000.

March 27, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover the balance due under a retail installment sales contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), entered March 26, 1999, which, in effect, denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered October 15, 1997, upon his default in appearing and answering.

Vlachos Torchio, LLP, Islandia, N.Y. (Daniel S. Torchio of counsel), for appellant.

Eric M. Berman, Mineola, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant attempting to vacate a judgment entered upon his or her default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Loria v. Plesser, 267 A.D.2d 213; [2d Dept., Dec. 6, 1999]; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568 ). The defendant does not argue that he had a reasonable excuse for his default, nor does he claim that he was not served with process. Accordingly, there is no basis to reverse the order appealed from and vacate the judgment.


Summaries of

Citibank, N.A. v. Amato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 2000
270 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Citibank, N.A. v. Amato

Case Details

Full title:CITIBANK, N.A., Respondent, v. ROBERT AMATO, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 27, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 297