Gavalas v. Podelson
| Decision Date | 17 September 2002 |
| Parties | MARY M. GAVALAS, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>D. PODELSON et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A default judgment was not pursued within one year of the defendants-appellants' failure to respond to plaintiff's summons with notice. Thereafter, in response to defendants-appellants' resulting motion to dismiss, the standard was not met pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted defendants-appellants' motion and dismissed the underlying action insofar as asserted against them (see Hoppenfeld v Hoppenfeld, 220 AD2d 302; contrast Truong v All Pro Air Delivery, 278 AD2d 45).
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
Utak v. Commerce Bank Inc.
...a meritorious cause of action ( Hoppenfeld v. Hoppenfeld, 220 A.D.2d 302, 303, 632 N.Y.S.2d 558 [1995]; Gavalas v. Podelson, 297 A.D.2d 535, 746 N.Y.S.2d 902 [2002] ). Plaintiff did not even address the fact that he never sought entry of a default judgment against Commerce, or that he waite......
-
Selective Auto Ins. Co. of N.J. v. Nesbitt
...the delay nor demonstrated a meritorious cause of action ( Hoppenfeld, 220 A.D.2d at 303, 632 N.Y.S.2d 558 ; Gavalas v. Podelson, 297 A.D.2d 535, 746 N.Y.S.2d 902 [1st Dept. 2002] ).Accordingly, the complaint should be ...
- MATTER OF DIANA