From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Town of East Hampton v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1995
222 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 4, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 12, 1994, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Robinson v Laurent, 205 A.D.2d 517); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

In order to vacate a default judgment, a defendant must demonstrate that there was an excusable delay and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Kyriacopoulos v Mendon Leasing Corp., 216 A.D.2d 532; Matter of Hostomsky v Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 214 A.D.2d 733; Korea Exch. Bank v Attilio, 186 A.D.2d 634). The defendants failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the default judgment entered against them will not be vacated (see, Palostrada v Modugno, 168 A.D.2d 673). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Town of East Hampton v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1995
222 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Town of East Hampton v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, Respondents, v. ALFRED RODRIGUEZ et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Dec 4, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 520

Citing Cases

Town of East Hampton v. Rodriguez

Decided March 26, 1996 Appeal from (2d Dept: 222 A.D.2d 429) FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS AND…

State of New York Mortgage Agency v. Lavin

On the subsequent motion to vacate her default, the appellant did not contest the accuracy of the…