Woori American Bank v. Winopa International Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woori American Bank v. Winopa International Ltd.

63 A.D.3d 490, 879 N.Y.S.2d 711

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

DecidedJune 9, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 490 (Woori American Bank v. Winopa International 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

Woori American Bank v. Winopa International Ltd., 63 A.D.3d 490, 879 N.Y.S.2d 711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered April 8, 2008, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate an order of the same court (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered October 21, 2004, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and directing entry of judgment against defendants in the principal amount of $95,470.03, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[491]*491Defendants were properly denied relief under CPLR 5015 (a) (2) since they did not show that their new evidence refuted the essential findings underlying the order and would probably have resulted in a different outcome (see Bongiasca v Bongiasca, 289 AD2d 121, 122 [2001]). The evidence submitted did not establish that the statements in question were fabricated (cf. McCarthy v Port of N.Y. Auth., 21 AD2d 125, 127 [1964]). In any event, Justice Heitler’s determination did not rest solely on those statements, but also on defendants’ initial failure to deny their indebtedness and their inability to offer any other evidence that they had made the payments as they claimed.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Buckley, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered April 8, 2008, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate an order of the same court (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered October 21, 2004, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and directing entry of judgment against defendants in the principal amount of $95,470.03, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[491]*491Defendants were properly denied relief under CPLR 5015 (a) (2) since they did not show that their new evidence refuted the essential findings underlying the order and would probably have resulted in a different outcome (see Bongiasca v Bongiasca, 289 AD2d 121, 122 [2001]). The evidence submitted did not establish that the statements in question were fabricated (cf. McCarthy v Port of N.Y. Auth., 21 AD2d 125, 127 [1964]). In any event, Justice Heitler’s determination did not rest solely on those statements, but also on defendants’ initial failure to deny their indebtedness and their inability to offer any other evidence that they had made the payments as they claimed.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Buckley, McGuire, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 490, 879 N.Y.S.2d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woori-american-bank-v-winopa-international-ltd-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack