
    Concetta De Fini, Appellant, v. Suzanna Imperatori, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    April 12, 1926.
    Judgments — default — error to grant leave to defendant to move to open default.
    Since defendant’s default in answering was inexcusable, it was error for the court on denying a second motion to open her default to grant leave to renew the application, since it appears that she made no showing of any real merit in her defense:
    Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the City Court of the City of New York, denying defendant’s second motion to open its default as allows a renewal of the application.
    
      Canter & Pines [Leonard F. Fish of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      Nadal, Jones & Mowton [Irving W. Young, Jr., of counsel], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

An examination of the papers indicates that defendant suffered a default in a fairly inexcusable manner and has twice refrained from showing in its affidavits any real merit in the defense, and in particular, from giving the names of witnesses who could prove such defense, if any, although the necessity of that course was suggested at the time of the denial of the first motion. Under these circumstances we do not think that any further leave should be granted.

Order modified by striking therefrom the provision for a renewal of the motion and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant.

All concur; present, Bijur, Lydon and Levy, JJ.  