Legal Opinion
Fiona, Inc. v. Conklin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 19, 1985PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In an action brought pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel a determination of claims to a certain parcel of real property, defendants Anna Conklin and Mabel Topping appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated February 27, 1984, which denied their motion to renew their cross motion to vacate their default in serving an answer, and to direct that their answer be deemed served.
Order reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, motion for renewal granted and, upon renewal, appellants’ default is vacated and their answer is deemed served.
*840We…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- FID. & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. Arthur Andersen & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Junior v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Weber v. Victory Memorial HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- In re the Estate of StrohmerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1933
- In re the Estate of McKeonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Matzen Construction, Inc. v. HaleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- R. M. R. Restaurant, Inc. v. Bygaph Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985