North Fork Bank v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North Fork Bank v. Martin

257 A.D.2d 613, 684 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 301

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 613 (North Fork Bank v. Martin) 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

North Fork Bank v. Martin, 257 A.D.2d 613, 684 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover on certain notes and guarantees, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated August 13, 1997, which denied their motion to vacate (1) a judgment of the same court (Lama, J.), entered July 16, 1996, which, upon their failure to respond to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Frederick K. Martin in the total amount of $194,249.61 and against the defendant Frederick K. Martin, Inc., in the total amount of $157,211.35, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Gowan, J.), entered January 8, 1997, which, after an inquest, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the sum of $5,293.75 for attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ attorney failed to oppose the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. This failure was part of a pattern of “repeated neglect” rather than an “isolated, inadvertent mistake” (Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414, citing McCarthy v Chef Italia, 105 AD2d 992). The Supreme Court did not improvid'ently exercise its discretion in concluding, under these circumstances, that there was no reasonable excuse for the default (see also, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512; Rock v Schwartz, 244 AD2d 542).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover on certain notes and guarantees, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated August 13, 1997, which denied their motion to vacate (1) a judgment of the same court (Lama, J.), entered July 16, 1996, which, upon their failure to respond to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Frederick K. Martin in the total amount of $194,249.61 and against the defendant Frederick K. Martin, Inc., in the total amount of $157,211.35, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Gowan, J.), entered January 8, 1997, which, after an inquest, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the sum of $5,293.75 for attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ attorney failed to oppose the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. This failure was part of a pattern of “repeated neglect” rather than an “isolated, inadvertent mistake” (Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414, citing McCarthy v Chef Italia, 105 AD2d 992). The Supreme Court did not improvid'ently exercise its discretion in concluding, under these circumstances, that there was no reasonable excuse for the default (see also, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512; Rock v Schwartz, 244 AD2d 542).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 613, 684 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-fork-bank-v-martin-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack