Although appellant denominated its motion as one to vacate its default in not opposing plaintiff's earlier motion to strike its answer, the IAS Court explicitly stated, and indeed appellant now explicitly argues in its reply brief, that plaintiff's earlier motion, resulting in the January 5, 1995 order, was not granted on default but on the merits, for failure to comply with a prior disclosure order. If that was the case, then appellant's instant motion to vacate the prior...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
