Citibank (N.Y.S.) v. Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank (N.Y.S.) v. Lewis

216 A.D.2d 612, 627 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5839

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 612 (Citibank (N.Y.S.) v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Citibank (N.Y.S.) v. Lewis, 216 A.D.2d 612, 627 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals (1) from an order of the [613]*613Supreme Court (Relihan, Jr., J.), entered September 1, 1993 in Tompkins County, which granted plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, defendant contends that his answer to the verified complaint was timely served and that, therefore, Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff a default judgment. However, inasmuch as defendant failed to produce a copy of the answer in opposition to plaintiffs motion, we find that Supreme Court properly concluded that defendant was in default. We similarly reject defendant’s claim that plaintiff failed to provide him with adequate notice of its motion. Plaintiff complied with the time requirements applicable to default applications. Moreover, defendant received the motion papers within sufficient time to prepare a response and appeared in court to oppose the motion on the return date. Consequently, we find no reason to disturb the order and judgment of Supreme Court.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeals (1) from an order of the [613]*613Supreme Court (Relihan, Jr., J.), entered September 1, 1993 in Tompkins County, which granted plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, defendant contends that his answer to the verified complaint was timely served and that, therefore, Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff a default judgment. However, inasmuch as defendant failed to produce a copy of the answer in opposition to plaintiffs motion, we find that Supreme Court properly concluded that defendant was in default. We similarly reject defendant’s claim that plaintiff failed to provide him with adequate notice of its motion. Plaintiff complied with the time requirements applicable to default applications. Moreover, defendant received the motion papers within sufficient time to prepare a response and appeared in court to oppose the motion on the return date. Consequently, we find no reason to disturb the order and judgment of Supreme Court.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 612, 627 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-nys-v-lewis-nyappdiv-1995.