Subolefsky
v.
Palese

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Supreme Court of DelawareJan 7, 2003
820 A.2d 373 (Del. 2003)

Cases citing this case

How cited

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

No. 426, 2002

Submitted: November 18, 2002

Decided: January 7, 2003

Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 00J-04-041


Affirmed.

Unpublished opinion is below.

JAMES SUBOLEFSKY, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. CATHERINE PALESE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 426, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: January 7, 2003

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.

ORDER

This 7th day of January 2003, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief, the appellee's motion to affirm, and the record below, the Court finds it manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the judgment against appellant under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b). The appellant did not promptly move to reopen the judgment, which was entered by the Justice of the Peace Court in January 2000 and transferred to the Superior Court in April 2000, and his motion to reopen did not set forth "extraordinary circumstances" justifying relief under Rule 60(b).

Wife B. v. Husband B., 395 A.2d 358 (Del. 1978).

Schremp v. Marvel, 405 A.2d 119, 120 (Del. 1979) (although Rule 60(b) provides no time limit, movant is required to act without "unreasonable delay").

Jewell v. Division of Social Servs., 401 A.2d 88, 90 (Del. 1979).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.