Holubar v. Holubar
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant Michelle Holubar (hereinafter the defendant) was in default for failing to timely answer the complaint or appear in this action. Thus, the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her was untimely (see CPLR 308 [2]; 320 [a]) and should not have been considered. To avoid the entry of a default judgment against her, the defendant was required to provide both a potentially meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for her delay in answering or appearing (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Katz v. KatzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- McGee v. DunnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Zino v. Joab Taxi, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- May v. Hartsdale Manor Owners Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Yan Ping Xu v. Van ZwienenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. EliacinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Southstar III, LLC v. EnttienneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Oteri v. Oteri-HarkinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Yi Zhao v. LiuAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.