From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 2001
281 A.D.2d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

holding that corporations are required to appear by attorney, or face default

Summary of this case from McCracken v. Adams

Opinion

March 6, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered January 11, 2000, which, in an action for defamation and tortious interference with contract in which counterclaims for tortious interference with business relations and unfair trade practices have been interposed, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendants' brief, denied defendants' motion to vacate a prior order granting plaintiff's motion for a default judgment as against the corporate defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Christopher J. Garvey, for plaintiff-respondent.

Rupert Higgins, for pro Se.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Tom, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.


The motion court had previously directed the corporate defendant to appear by attorney, as required by CPLR 321(a), within 30 days, or face default. Having failed to do so, the default judgment against it was properly granted. There is no merit to defendants' argument that CCA 1809(2) entitles the corporate defendant to appear herein by an authorized officer.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 6, 2001
281 A.D.2d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

holding that corporations are required to appear by attorney, or face default

Summary of this case from McCracken v. Adams
Case details for

Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins

Case Details

Full title:MAIL BOXES ETC. USA, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RUPERT HIGGINS, ET…

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

Date published: Mar 6, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 176 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 524

Citing Cases

GIOIA EQUITIES v. ONC DEVELOPMENT

Although the court afforded defendants repeated opportunities for ONC Development to retain an attorney, it…

Gioia Equities, Inc. v. ONC Dev. LLC

Although the court afforded defendants repeated opportunities for ONC Development to retain an attorney, it…