Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ultracashmere House, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ultracashmere House, Ltd.

169 A.D.2d 419, 564 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 419 (Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ultracashmere House, Ltd.) 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

Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co. v. Ultracashmere House, Ltd., 169 A.D.2d 419, 564 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about June 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied the motion of interpleading defendant Ultracashmere House, Ltd. seeking a default judgment against interpleading defendant Schwarzfeld, Ganfer, Shore & Rosenblum, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Movant’s reliance upon the provisions of CPLR 3215 is misplaced. The stipulation of settlement at issue did not, by its terms, provide for the entry of a default judgment in the event of a party’s failure to comply. Accordingly, movant’s attempt to hold its former attorneys in default for their purported failure to return discovery documents and to execute a satisfaction of judgment must fail.

With respect to that portion of the motion seeking the recusal of Justice Wilk, movant’s affidavit is devoid of any information which would indicate the necessity of such action on any ground pursuant to section 14 of the Judiciary Law.

We find the movant’s remaining arguments to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about June 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied the motion of interpleading defendant Ultracashmere House, Ltd. seeking a default judgment against interpleading defendant Schwarzfeld, Ganfer, Shore & Rosenblum, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Movant’s reliance upon the provisions of CPLR 3215 is misplaced. The stipulation of settlement at issue did not, by its terms, provide for the entry of a default judgment in the event of a party’s failure to comply. Accordingly, movant’s attempt to hold its former attorneys in default for their purported failure to return discovery documents and to execute a satisfaction of judgment must fail.

With respect to that portion of the motion seeking the recusal of Justice Wilk, movant’s affidavit is devoid of any information which would indicate the necessity of such action on any ground pursuant to section 14 of the Judiciary Law.

We find the movant’s remaining arguments to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 419, 564 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumbermans-mutual-casualty-co-v-ultracashmere-house-ltd-nyappdiv-1991.