Lehifa Trading Co. v. Russo Securities, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1994 |
| Citation | 205 A.D.2d 738,614 N.Y.S.2d 906 |
| Parties | LEHIFA TRADING CO., Respondent, v. RUSSO SECURITIES, INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Simon S. Kogan, New York City (Louis Taubman and Robin Sherak, on the brief), for appellants.
Firestone & Harris, Brooklyn (Alan J. Firestone, of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the defendants appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated June 15, 1992, as imposed $1,500 in sanctions on them, and (2) an order of the same court (Held, J.), dated September 2, 1992, which denied their motion to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer.
ORDERED that the order dated June 15, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated September 2, 1992, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendants' motion to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer is granted.
In an order dated June 15, 1992, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the branch of the defendants' motion which was to vacate an order entered against them upon their default in answering the complaint, upon the conditions that the defendants serve an answer within 20 days of the service of a copy of the order with notice of entry and pay $1,500 to the plaintiff's attorney. Since proper notice of entry of the order dated June 15, 1992, was never served on the defendants, their time to answer never commenced running (see, Nagin v. Long Island Savings Bank, 94 A.D.2d 710, 462 N.Y.S.2d 69). Accordingly, the defendants did not default in serving their answer and the court should have compelled the plaintiff to accept the answer.
The court properly imposed sanctions in the defendants in the amount of $1,500 in its order dated June 15, 1992. The failure on the part of the defendants to have settled, signed, and entered a written order based on the oral order issued by the Supreme Court on February 4, 1992, resulted in the need for additional motion practice on the part of the plaintiff (see, Moran v. Rynar, 39 A.D.2d 718, 332 N.Y.S.2d 138).
We have reviewed the defendants' remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JBBNY, LLC v. Dedvukaj
...complaint, their answer was timely served, as their time to answer never started to run (see CPLR 3211[f] ; Lehifa Trading Co. v. Russo Sec., 205 A.D.2d 738, 738, 614 N.Y.S.2d 906 ).Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.5–b, the court rule governing electronic filing for the Supreme Court, a party may s......
- Leis v. Finkelstein
-
Neveloff v. Faxton Children's Hosp. and Rehabilitation Center
...days of receipt (see, CPLR 2101[f]; Deygoo v. Eastern Abstract Corp., 204 A.D.2d 596, 612 N.Y.S.2d 415; cf., Lehifa Trading Co. v. Russo Sec., 205 A.D.2d 738, 614 N.Y.S.2d 906). The plaintiff offered no proof that the date stamped on the order by the County Clerk was not the actual date of ......
-
Chatsworth Assets, Inc. v. 405 W. 45th St., Inc.
...It is thus apparent that defendant's purpose was not to preserve its rights but rather to delay (compare, Lehifa Trading Co. v. Russo Sec., 205 A.D.2d 738, 614 N.Y.S.2d 906). In any event, we have reviewed all of defendant fee owner's proposed defenses, which encompass the defenses jointly ......