From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oparaji v. Weston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 2000
271 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted February 28, 2000

April 20, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated March 15, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated October 22, 1998, entered upon his default in answering the complaint.

David A. Gabay, Huntington, N.Y., for appellant.

Munzel Napolitano, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (John J. Munzel of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the failure of a properly-served summons to indicate the time within which to answer the complaint is not a jurisdictional defect warranting the vacatur of a judgment entered pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) upon the defendant's default (see, Ronan v. J.J.D. Food Servs. Inc., 119 A.D.2d 651 ; Elder v. Morse, 214 App. Div. 632 ). Moreover, the defendant did not provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to respond to the summons and complaint until almost eight months after he was served (see, CPLR 5015[a][1]; Campbell v. Dutton Stor. Distrib. Co., 240 A.D.2d 690).


Summaries of

Oparaji v. Weston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 2000
271 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Oparaji v. Weston

Case Details

Full title:Maurice Oparaji, respondent, v. Robert Weston, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 20, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 335

Citing Cases

252 W. 125th St. v. Hamade

Defendant's argument that this error is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal, however, is…