From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DE MARCO v. McCONNELL

Supreme Court, New York County
Aug 9, 1932
146 Misc. 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)

Opinion

August 9, 1932.

Philip Leavitt, for the plaintiff.

Bernard B. Pensak, for the defendants.


Motion is denied, with leave to renew upon proper papers. A default judgment will not be vacated, even though the judgment debtor is willing to pay costs and proposes an affidavit of merits. He must convince the court that he has either a good cause or defense as the case may be. This can only be done by a succint yet sufficient disclosure of his evidence. This court has frequently declared that default judgments are not a mere formality or idle gesture, and will not be disturbed as a matter of course. A study of the authorities, particularly Dana v. Thaw ( 56 Misc. 612), will teach movant's attorney how to proceed. Refusing to indulge in criticism, the court is constrained to remark that, while inexperience is humanely acceptable, it is not a good excuse for failure to comply with express legal requirement.

Order signed.


Summaries of

DE MARCO v. McCONNELL

Supreme Court, New York County
Aug 9, 1932
146 Misc. 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)
Case details for

DE MARCO v. McCONNELL

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD DE MARCO, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW McCONNELL and Another, Defendants

Court:Supreme Court, New York County

Date published: Aug 9, 1932

Citations

146 Misc. 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)
260 N.Y.S. 540

Citing Cases

Lunghino v. Marine Trust Company of Buffalo

If the relief plaintiff is seeking herein is to be granted he must not only excuse his default but he must…