Seidenberg v. Ostojic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seidenberg v. Ostojic

79 A.D.2d 1020, 435 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9929

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 1020 (Seidenberg v. Ostojic) 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

Seidenberg v. Ostojic, 79 A.D.2d 1020, 435 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9929 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a series of promissory notes and written guarantees thereof, commenced by service of a summons with notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 15,1980, which denied his motion “to rehear and re-argue” a prior order of the same court, dated June 13,1980, insofar as it denied his motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant. (The motion “to re-hear and re-argue” was actually one for renewal.) [1021]*1021Order dated August 15, 1980 reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion to renew granted and, upon renewal, the order dated June 13, 1980 is vacated with respect to the individual defendant, plaintiff is granted summary judgment as against said defendant for the balance due on the notes, plus interest, and the action is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination of the reasonable amount of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the individual defendant on his guarantees notwithstanding the bankruptcy petition filed by the corporate defendant. A hearing should be held to determine the reasonable amount of the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees (see, e.g., Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Kassel, 72 AD2d 787). Titone, J.P., Lazer, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on a series of promissory notes and written guarantees thereof, commenced by service of a summons with notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 15,1980, which denied his motion “to rehear and re-argue” a prior order of the same court, dated June 13,1980, insofar as it denied his motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant. (The motion “to re-hear and re-argue” was actually one for renewal.) [1021]*1021Order dated August 15, 1980 reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion to renew granted and, upon renewal, the order dated June 13, 1980 is vacated with respect to the individual defendant, plaintiff is granted summary judgment as against said defendant for the balance due on the notes, plus interest, and the action is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination of the reasonable amount of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the individual defendant on his guarantees notwithstanding the bankruptcy petition filed by the corporate defendant. A hearing should be held to determine the reasonable amount of the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees (see, e.g., Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Kassel, 72 AD2d 787). Titone, J.P., Lazer, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 1020, 435 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seidenberg-v-ostojic-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack