Marine Midland Bank N. A. v. Cramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marine Midland Bank N. A. v. Cramer

177 A.D.2d 1009, 579 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15780

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 1009 (Marine Midland Bank N. A. v. Cramer) 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

Marine Midland Bank N. A. v. Cramer, 177 A.D.2d 1009, 579 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant failed to establish that the alleged newly discovered evidence, offered on his motion to vacate plaintiff’s judgment against him (see, Marine Midland Bank v Daubney Bowling Enters., 136 AD2d 963, lv denied 72 NY2d 810), could not have been discovered prior to judgment through the exercise of ordinary diligence or that the proffered evidence would, if accurate, have affected the result in the prior proceeding (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Accordingly, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion (see, Mully v Drayn, 51 AD2d 660; Wittemeyer v Martin, 32 AD2d 597; see also, Matter of Commercial Structures v City of Syracuse, 97 AD2d 965).

We have examined the other issues raised on appeal and [1010]*1010find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant failed to establish that the alleged newly discovered evidence, offered on his motion to vacate plaintiff’s judgment against him (see, Marine Midland Bank v Daubney Bowling Enters., 136 AD2d 963, lv denied 72 NY2d 810), could not have been discovered prior to judgment through the exercise of ordinary diligence or that the proffered evidence would, if accurate, have affected the result in the prior proceeding (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Accordingly, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion (see, Mully v Drayn, 51 AD2d 660; Wittemeyer v Martin, 32 AD2d 597; see also, Matter of Commercial Structures v City of Syracuse, 97 AD2d 965).

We have examined the other issues raised on appeal and [1010]*1010find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 1009, 579 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-midland-bank-n-a-v-cramer-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack