Mr. Natsis, Inc. v. Chrisomallides

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mr. Natsis, Inc. v. Chrisomallides

16 A.D.3d 361, 791 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3363

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 361 (Mr. Natsis, Inc. v. Chrisomallides) 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

Mr. Natsis, Inc. v. Chrisomallides, 16 A.D.3d 361, 791 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered July 29, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a stipulated judgment entered against him five years earlier in the amount of $100,683, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to remand the matter for a referee’s hearing on calculation of interest to be held within 30 days after completion of defendant’s examination and production of all requested documents in connection with the supplementary enforcement proceeding, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, on condition defendant appear for such examination with all requested documents within 45 days of service of this Court’s order, with notice of entry. In the event defendant should not so appear, the order shall be unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s contention that he had satisfied the underlying stipulation by submitting such evidence as checks, returned-mail envelopes and invoices, along with a wholly conclusory affidavit, was properly rejected. It is further evident from the stipulation that interest was factored into the sum for which a judgment could be entered on defendant’s default. Consequently, the matter is remanded to a referee for a computation of the appropriate interest after 1997.

In view of defendant’s tactics in seeking to avoid examination for supplementary proceedings to further the enforcement of the judgment, he shall not be entitled to the reference unless he appears, with all requested documents, and fully cooperates [362]*362with the examination within the reasonable period of time indicated. Concur—Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered July 29, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a stipulated judgment entered against him five years earlier in the amount of $100,683, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to remand the matter for a referee’s hearing on calculation of interest to be held within 30 days after completion of defendant’s examination and production of all requested documents in connection with the supplementary enforcement proceeding, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, on condition defendant appear for such examination with all requested documents within 45 days of service of this Court’s order, with notice of entry. In the event defendant should not so appear, the order shall be unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s contention that he had satisfied the underlying stipulation by submitting such evidence as checks, returned-mail envelopes and invoices, along with a wholly conclusory affidavit, was properly rejected. It is further evident from the stipulation that interest was factored into the sum for which a judgment could be entered on defendant’s default. Consequently, the matter is remanded to a referee for a computation of the appropriate interest after 1997.

In view of defendant’s tactics in seeking to avoid examination for supplementary proceedings to further the enforcement of the judgment, he shall not be entitled to the reference unless he appears, with all requested documents, and fully cooperates [362]*362with the examination within the reasonable period of time indicated. Concur—Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 361, 791 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mr-natsis-inc-v-chrisomallides-nyappdiv-2005.