JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Hayes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Hayes

138 A.D.3d 617, 28 N.Y.S.3d 868

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

DecidedApril 26, 2016

Docket942N 109882/09

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 617 (JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Hayes) 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

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Hayes, 138 A.D.3d 617, 28 N.Y.S.3d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 19, 2015, which denied defendant Sharay Hayes’s motion to compel plaintiff to comply with the terms of a stipulation, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for an extension of time to oppose defendant’s motion nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly considered plaintiff’s late-served opposition to defendant’s motion, because the 15-day delay was to accommodate new counsel, and there was no showing of prejudice to defendant, who was able to submit reply papers (CPLR 2214 [b], [c]; see Traders Co. v AST Sportswear, Inc., 31 AD3d 276 [1st Dept 2006]; Romeo v Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 AD2d 688 [2d Dept 1989]).

In any event, the email from plaintiff’s counsel to defendant stating, “My client has advised me that based upon the BPO the minimum offer that could be submitted to the investor for consideration is $985,600,” was not a contractually binding offer (see Eustathopoulo v Gillespie, 218 App Div 179, 186 [1st Dept 1926]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 19, 2015, which denied defendant Sharay Hayes’s motion to compel plaintiff to comply with the terms of a stipulation, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for an extension of time to oppose defendant’s motion nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly considered plaintiff’s late-served opposition to defendant’s motion, because the 15-day delay was to accommodate new counsel, and there was no showing of prejudice to defendant, who was able to submit reply papers (CPLR 2214 [b], [c]; see Traders Co. v AST Sportswear, Inc., 31 AD3d 276 [1st Dept 2006]; Romeo v Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 AD2d 688 [2d Dept 1989]).

In any event, the email from plaintiff’s counsel to defendant stating, “My client has advised me that based upon the BPO the minimum offer that could be submitted to the investor for consideration is $985,600,” was not a contractually binding offer (see Eustathopoulo v Gillespie, 218 App Div 179, 186 [1st Dept 1926]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 617, 28 N.Y.S.3d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jpmorgan-chase-bank-national-assn-v-hayes-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack