Hermele v. Sumkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hermele v. Sumkin

282 A.D.2d 502, 722 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3565

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 502 (Hermele v. Sumkin) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 502, 722 N.Y.S.2d 889, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hermele-v-sumkin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack