From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. City of Watervliet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 7, 1991
177 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 7, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Conway, J.).


We reject plaintiffs' contention that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion to vacate the default judgment entered against them. The record supports the conclusion that plaintiffs failed to establish a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious claim (see, Amity Plumbing Heating Supply Corp. v Zito Plumbing Heating Corp., 110 A.D.2d 863). They did not offer a credible excuse for their failure to timely serve their papers in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment (see, Henderson v. Stilwell, 116 A.D.2d 861, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 606; Dominski v. Firestone Tire Rubber Co., 92 A.D.2d 704). As the court noted, plaintiffs' affidavits offered only conclusory averments which failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact to defeat the initial motion for summary judgment and thus failed to establish a meritorious claim (see, Saeed v Boulevard Hosp., 109 A.D.2d 831). The parties' remaining arguments have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Casey, J.P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

King v. City of Watervliet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 7, 1991
177 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

King v. City of Watervliet

Case Details

Full title:GERALDINE M. KING et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF WATERVLIET, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 7, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 63

Citing Cases

Bonded Concrete, Inc. v. Cosimo Audino

It has neglected to provide a breakdown of the bill it sent to Audino in July 1992 for $82,850. It has…