LYNN & CAHILL, LLP, plf-res, v. NADINE WITKIN, def-ap

8807-8808-8809. LYNN & CAHILL, LLP, plf-res, v. NADINE WITKIN, def-ap — Law Firm of Kenneth S. Sternberg, New York (Kenneth S. Sternberg of counsel), for ap — Lynn & Cahill, LLP, New York (John R. Cahill of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 4, 2012, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $57,121.90 on its claim for an account stated, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered January 6, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment with respect to its claim for an account stated, and denied defendant's cross motion for an extension of time to file an answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from aforesaid order and from order, same court and Justice, entered April 2, 2012, which, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to its original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8807-8808-8809. LYNN & CAHILL, LLP, plf-res, v. NADINE WITKIN, def-ap — Law Firm of Kenneth S. Sternberg, New York (Kenneth S. Sternberg of counsel), for ap — Lynn & Cahill, LLP, New York (John R. Cahill of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 4, 2012, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $57,121.90 on its claim for an account stated, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered January 6, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment with respect to its claim for an account stated, and denied defendant’s cross motion for an extension of time to file an answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from aforesaid order and from order, same court and Justice, entered April 2, 2012, which, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to its original determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

In response to plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for failing to file an answer (see e.g. Toure v. Harrison, 6 AD3d 270, 271 [1st Dept 2004]). Rather, the record suggests that defendant’s inaction constituted a tactical decision on the part of herself and counsel. Nor did defendant demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action.

LYNN & CAHILL, LLP, plf-res, v. NADINE WITKIN, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal