From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Gustina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 18, 1987
135 A.D.2d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

December 18, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Tenney, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, and petition granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: We conclude that the court abused its discretion by refusing to allow petitioner, purportedly the settlor and trustee of two bank-account trusts, permission to withdraw the funds in both accounts. The court also abused its discretion by accepting and considering respondent's opposing papers that were submitted some 21 days after the return date of the motion. The record does not reveal that respondent made any application for an extension of time to respond or that there was any excuse for respondent's delay and default in opposing the motion (see, CPLR 2214 [c]; Dominski v Firestone Tire Rubber Co., 92 A.D.2d 704; Wallin v Wallin, 34 A.D.2d 870).

Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw all principal and accrued interest from both bank accounts as well as petitioner's request that respondent account for petitioner's moneys and property acquired and managed by her prior to June 26, 1985, while serving in a fiduciary capacity. Such an accounting shall proceed before a different Justice.


Summaries of

Matter of Gustina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 18, 1987
135 A.D.2d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Matter of Gustina

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Conservatorship of CHARLES E. GUSTINA

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 18, 1987

Citations

135 A.D.2d 1124 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Whiteford v. Smith

"There is ample authority under CPLR 2214 (c) to overlook late service of a notice or paper if the court…

Rivers v. Butterhill Realty

Defendants' answering papers were clearly not timely served under CPLR 2214 (b). Supreme Court determined…