Dime Savings Bank v. Pine Drive Associates, Inc.

28 Misc. 2d 648, 212 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3321
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 27, 1961·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion 11 for an order directing the plaintiff to accept the answer of the defendant Preferred Transmix Concrete, Inc.”, is denied.

The movant was served with the summons and complaint on January 9, 1961. The answer was mailed on February 3, 1961, received and returned on February 6. 1961. No affidavit of merits is submitted, nor is any reasonable excuse given for the failure to serve the answer within 20 days after service of the complaint.

[649]*649The observation may be made that the movant, even though it has defaulted in answering in the foreclosure action, is not precluded from proving its lien in a surplus money proceeding (Matter of Lobbett v. Galpin, 228 App. Div. 65; Rules Civ. Prac., rules 262, 263).

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

Dime Savings Bank v. Pine Drive Associates, Inc., 28 Misc. 2d 648, 212 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3321 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

28 Misc. 2d 648 (Dime Savings Bank v. Pine Drive Associates, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Riverhead Savings Bank v. Garone
183 A.D.2d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Kulm Credit Union v. Harter
157 N.W.2d 700 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1968)