From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Padilla v. DaSilva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 9, 1990
166 A.D.2d 211 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

October 9, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.).


The appeal from the order dated April 12, 1990 is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the aggrieved party. (CPLR 5511.)

Notwithstanding the short delay occasioned by the default, defendants' repeated failure to appear for trial of this matter and counsel's repeated evasions, in an effort to demonstrate a legally excusable default, demonstrate that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default. (Raphael v. Cohen, 62 N.Y.2d 700, 701.) Counsel's affirmation contained numerous claims, either completely belied by the record or incredible. (Cari v. Pastore, 142 A.D.2d 799, 800.) Defendants have also failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. (Eisenstein v. Rose, 135 A.D.2d 369, 370.)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Ross and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Padilla v. DaSilva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 9, 1990
166 A.D.2d 211 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Padilla v. DaSilva

Case Details

Full title:WILFREDO PADILLA, Respondent, v. JACK DaSILVA et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Oct 9, 1990

Citations

166 A.D.2d 211 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
564 N.Y.S.2d 96

Citing Cases

Port Distributing Corp. v. Pflaumer

This rule is in accordance with the general principle that a waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a…

Yoon v. Fordham University

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.). The action was properly dismissed in view…