Key Bank of Long Island v. Munkenbeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Key Bank of Long Island v. Munkenbeck

205 A.D.2d 737, 615 N.Y.S.2d 274

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

DecidedJune 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 737 (Key Bank of Long Island v. Munkenbeck) 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

Key Bank of Long Island v. Munkenbeck, 205 A.D.2d 737, 615 N.Y.S.2d 274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover sums due under several promissory notes and drafts drawn upon letters of credit, the defendants George J. Munkenbeck, Jr., and Mary H. Munkenbeck, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated December 2, 1992, as denied their motion to set aside a judgment of the same court (Underwood, J.), dated May 19, 1992.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find that there was "good cause shown” for the plaintiffs delay in filing the judgment, which was caused by the [738]*738death of one assigned Justice and the illness of another (see, 22 NYCRR 202.48 [b]; Levine v Levine, 179 AD2d 625). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover sums due under several promissory notes and drafts drawn upon letters of credit, the defendants George J. Munkenbeck, Jr., and Mary H. Munkenbeck, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated December 2, 1992, as denied their motion to set aside a judgment of the same court (Underwood, J.), dated May 19, 1992.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find that there was "good cause shown” for the plaintiffs delay in filing the judgment, which was caused by the [738]*738death of one assigned Justice and the illness of another (see, 22 NYCRR 202.48 [b]; Levine v Levine, 179 AD2d 625). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 737, 615 N.Y.S.2d 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/key-bank-of-long-island-v-munkenbeck-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack