First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Rochester v. 1220 Richmond Road Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 September 1986 |
| Parties | FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF ROCHESTER, Appellant, v. 1220 RICHMOND ROAD CORP., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber, Rochester (Michael E. O'Neill, of counsel), for appellant.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, EIBER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sullivan, J.), dated November 21, 1984, as granted the motion of the defendants 1220 Richmond Road Corp. and Santina M. Coscia for leave to serve and file late answers to the plaintiff's interrogatories.
Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, and motion denied.
On July 25, 1984, the plaintiff served a set of interrogatories upon the defendant 1220 Richmond Road Corp. The interrogatories were to be answered within 15 days pursuant to CPLR former 3134(b). The defendant 1220 Richmond Road Corp. failed to timely answer the interrogatories or move to strike any of the interrogatories pursuant to CPLR 3133. On August 22, 1984, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to strike the joint answer of the defendants 1220 Richmond Road Corp. and Santina M. Coscia due to their failure to answer the interrogatories. The defendants defaulted on this motion. By order dated September 11, 1984, Special Term (Radin, J.), granted the plaintiff's motion unless the defendants responded to the interrogatories within 30 days after service of a copy of the order, with notice of entry, upon the defendants' attorney. The defendants were served with a copy of the order on September 21, 1984. Again, the defendants failed to comply within the relevant time requirements. Instead, they waited until November 8, 1984, when they moved, by order to show cause, for leave to serve and file a late set of answers to the interrogatories.
In support of the motion, counsel proffered the following excuses for not timely complying with the conditional order of preclusion:
"heavy schedule, lack of cooperation, misfiling of documents, poor response time to your affiant's requests, the outstanding bill for services, and partial law office failure."
In conclusory fashion, both counsel and the defendant Santina M. Coscia stated in their respective affidavits that the defendants had meritorious defenses. The proposed answers to the interrogatories were annexed to the defendants' moving papers, were unverified, and were prepared by the defendants' attorney.
Special Term, by order dated November 21, 1984, granted the defendants' motion on condition that "separate answers to the interrogatories to each defendant [were] provided plaintiff within ten (10) days" of the date of the order. The motion should have been unconditionally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weitzenberg v. Nassau Co. Dept. Rec.
...a party with personal knowledge of the facts, that a meritorious cause of action or defense exists" (First Fed. Say. & Loan Assn. of Rochester v 1220 Richmond Rd. Corp., 123 A.D.2d 418, 419; see, Carter v Hi Top Flower Wholesale Corp., 255 A.D.2d 412). Moreover, because they defaulted on th......
-
Goldberg v. Breth
...357 ; Kyriacopoulos v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 216 A.D.2d 532, 533, 628 N.Y.S.2d 769 ; First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of Rochester v. 1220 Richmond Rd. Corp., 123 A.D.2d 418, 419, 506 N.Y.S.2d 721 ). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse, we need not reach the issue of w......
-
Michaud v. City of New York
...of examples of law office failure, which were clearly unreasonable in this case (see, First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of Rochester v. 1220 Richmond Rd. Corp., 123 A.D.2d 418, 506 N.Y.S.2d 721; Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509, 472 N.Y.S.2d BRACKEN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, SANTUCCI, F......