Hermele v. Sumkin

282 A.D.2d 502, 722 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3565
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 9, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Incorporated Village of Freeport appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated May 16, 2000, which denied its motion for leave to serve a late answer.

[503]*503Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for leave to serve a late answer. The appellant failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely answer and a meritorious defense to the action (see, Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310; Gleissner v Singh, 264 AD2d 811; Kyriacopoulos v Mendon Leasing Corp., 216 AD2d 532; De Vito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 AD2d 530). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Hermele v. Sumkin, 282 A.D.2d 502, 722 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

282 A.D.2d 502 (Hermele v. Sumkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Parratta v. McAllister
283 A.D.2d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)