First New York Bank for Business v. Kessler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

First New York Bank for Business v. Kessler

270 A.D.2d 56, 704 N.Y.S.2d 58, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2599

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 56 (First New York Bank for Business v. Kessler) 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

First New York Bank for Business v. Kessler, 270 A.D.2d 56, 704 N.Y.S.2d 58, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered March 31, 1999, which denied the motion of Trisingh Enterprises, Inc. to vacate all prior orders entered in this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We have previously determined that “[t]he fact that the IAS Court in the prior action [referring to this action] corrected its error in granting judgment to plaintiff therein [the First New York Bank for Business] and granted judgment to appellant [57]*57[Kessler, respondent herein] without notification to the present plaintiff [Trisingh] did not vitiate the prior order and judgment”, which order and judgment granted defendant-respondent Kessler’s motion to dismiss this action, brought by the First New York Bank for Business, to recover upon, inter alia, Kessler’s guarantee of a debt (Trinsingh Enters, v Kessler, 249 AD2d 45, 46). Our determination on the prior appeal respecting the propriety of the judgment in this action stands as a bar to Trisingh’s present attempt to attack that same judgment by again raising the lack of notice claim previously rejected by this Court. Moreover, even if this Court’s prior decision did not bar Trisingh’s requested relief, Trisingh seeks relief as an assignee of the First New York Bank and the record affords no indication that Trisingh would be able to establish that the default of its assignor, which occurred prior to the assignment to Trisingh, was excusable, or that there exist other grounds warranting vacatur of the default judgment in Kessler’s favor.

We have considered Trisingh’s remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Ellerin, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered March 31, 1999, which denied the motion of Trisingh Enterprises, Inc. to vacate all prior orders entered in this action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We have previously determined that “[t]he fact that the IAS Court in the prior action [referring to this action] corrected its error in granting judgment to plaintiff therein [the First New York Bank for Business] and granted judgment to appellant [57]*57[Kessler, respondent herein] without notification to the present plaintiff [Trisingh] did not vitiate the prior order and judgment”, which order and judgment granted defendant-respondent Kessler’s motion to dismiss this action, brought by the First New York Bank for Business, to recover upon, inter alia, Kessler’s guarantee of a debt (Trinsingh Enters, v Kessler, 249 AD2d 45, 46). Our determination on the prior appeal respecting the propriety of the judgment in this action stands as a bar to Trisingh’s present attempt to attack that same judgment by again raising the lack of notice claim previously rejected by this Court. Moreover, even if this Court’s prior decision did not bar Trisingh’s requested relief, Trisingh seeks relief as an assignee of the First New York Bank and the record affords no indication that Trisingh would be able to establish that the default of its assignor, which occurred prior to the assignment to Trisingh, was excusable, or that there exist other grounds warranting vacatur of the default judgment in Kessler’s favor.

We have considered Trisingh’s remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Ellerin, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 56, 704 N.Y.S.2d 58, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-new-york-bank-for-business-v-kessler-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack