From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City Factors Corp. v. Heron

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County
Oct 27, 1961
33 Misc. 2d 105 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)

Opinion

October 27, 1961

Hutner Becker for defendant.

Marvin Usdin for plaintiff.


Motion for an order opening defendant's default and setting aside judgment entered against him on March 7, 1961 is denied.

The defendant has not shown why the investigation he now discusses was not made before he decided he had no defense and then willfully defaulted and permitted judgment to be entered against him. He does not claim, furthermore, that he was misled by the plaintiff into defaulting. His default was intentional ( Mazzella v. American Home Constr. Co., 10 A.D.2d 826) and was not "the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect as provided for in section 108 of the Civil Practice Act". ( General Aniline Film Corp. v. Rembrandt Graphic Arts Co., 281 App. Div. 1028.) It would cause chaos in our courts if defendants were permitted to default, to then investigate for possible defenses at leisure and later, having discovered a possible defense, to be permitted to reopen the default and to contest the action.


Summaries of

City Factors Corp. v. Heron

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County
Oct 27, 1961
33 Misc. 2d 105 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
Case details for

City Factors Corp. v. Heron

Case Details

Full title:CITY FACTORS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY HERON, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County

Date published: Oct 27, 1961

Citations

33 Misc. 2d 105 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
228 N.Y.S.2d 652