Legal Opinion
La Vin v. La Vin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 18, 1952PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Since respondent’s default was deliberate and intentional, and there was no adequate showing of a meritorious defense, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the motion. (Colonial Fuel Corp. v. Kahn, 214 App. Div. 83; Booraem v. Gibbons, 263 App. Div. 665; Scordo v. Terrell, 275 App. Div. 940; Chaplin v. Selznick, 186 Misc. 66, 68-69.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Wenzel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1088; 280 App. Div. 895.]
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chaplin v. SelznickNew York Supreme Court · 1945
- Booraem v. GibbonsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Colonial Fuel Corp. v. KahnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cohen v. La VinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- Heller v. WardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1960
- In re GolenbockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
- Domine v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1956