International Fidelity Insurance v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

International Fidelity Insurance v. Morgan

272 A.D.2d 272, 710 N.Y.S.2d 241, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6125

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 272 (International Fidelity Insurance v. Morgan) 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

International Fidelity Insurance v. Morgan, 272 A.D.2d 272, 710 N.Y.S.2d 241, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Burton Roberts, J.), entered January 27, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for remission of bail, and order, same court and Justice, entered February 2, 1998, which deemed reply papers a motion for reargument, granted reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s January 27, 1998 determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for remission of bail, made some five years after forfeiture of the bail at issue, was untimely (see, CPL 540.30 [2]). Moreover, defendant lacked standing to seek remission (see, Matter of Van Deusen v People, 97 AD2d 924, lv dismissed 62 NY2d 605, 915), and, in any event, there are no exceptional circumstances warranting the relief sought (see, People v Cotto, 262 AD2d 138). We decline to review defendant-appellant’s arguments made to this Court for the first time on reply. Were we to consider them, we would find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Burton Roberts, J.), entered January 27, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion for remission of bail, and order, same court and Justice, entered February 2, 1998, which deemed reply papers a motion for reargument, granted reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to the court’s January 27, 1998 determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for remission of bail, made some five years after forfeiture of the bail at issue, was untimely (see, CPL 540.30 [2]). Moreover, defendant lacked standing to seek remission (see, Matter of Van Deusen v People, 97 AD2d 924, lv dismissed 62 NY2d 605, 915), and, in any event, there are no exceptional circumstances warranting the relief sought (see, People v Cotto, 262 AD2d 138). We decline to review defendant-appellant’s arguments made to this Court for the first time on reply. Were we to consider them, we would find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 272, 710 N.Y.S.2d 241, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-fidelity-insurance-v-morgan-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack