The IAS Court was not precluded from exercising its discretion to vacate defendants' default in answering plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and restoring the matter to the motion calendar as here, where the default was inadvertently occasioned by confusion generated by the substitution of attorneys. The papers supporting defendants' motion to vacate the default were sufficient to make a prima facie showing of legal merit (Picotte Realty v Aragona,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
SEASHELLS, INC. v. BRIDGE ART PRODS., INC.
172 A.D.2d 353 (1991)
Seashells, Inc., Appellant, v. Bridge Art Productions, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
April 23, 1991
April 23, 1991
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
