From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kim v. Central Communication Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1990
166 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Summary

upholding imposition of a bond in proceedings to vacate default judgment

Summary of this case from ROSWELL CAP. PARTNERS LLC v. ACT

Opinion

October 2, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.).


In this action to recover for defendants' alleged breach of contract plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against defendants in the amount of $82,017.50 which was entered on August 9, 1989, and, subsequently, a levy against certain of defendants' bank accounts in Pennsylvania. Defendants' motion, inter alia, to vacate the judgment on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, that the default was excusable and that there is a meritorious defense to the action was denied due to defendant's failure to post the required bond in the sum of $120,500 before the return date of the motion. Since we see no reason for the imposition of a bond in an amount which is almost 50% greater than the amount of the default judgment, we reduce the amount of the bond to $85,000.

While defendants argue that it was an abuse of discretion to order the posting of a bond in addition to the levy which had already been placed against their accounts, defendants do not dispute plaintiffs' assertion that the Pennsylvania bank has applied the funds levied against to reduce defendants' loan balances and that there are presently no moneys being restrained to secure the judgment.

Relying on Pacific N. Fence Corp. v. Allied Fabricators ( 19 A.D.2d 541) and Capellino Abattoir, Inc. v. Lieberman ( 59 A.D.2d 986), defendants also urge that the judgment itself would have sufficed as security for plaintiffs. In both of the cited cases, however, the motion court had already made a determination on the merits of the underlying motion, whereas in this case the motion court never reached the merits. In our view, given the facts before it, the IAS did not err in imposing the requirement of an undertaking before consideration of the motion on the merits. Our only quarrel is with the amount fixed.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Kim v. Central Communication Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1990
166 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

upholding imposition of a bond in proceedings to vacate default judgment

Summary of this case from ROSWELL CAP. PARTNERS LLC v. ACT
Case details for

Kim v. Central Communication Services, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KEUN B. KIM et al., Respondents, v. CENTRAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC.…

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1990

Citations

166 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
560 N.Y.S.2d 291

Citing Cases

ROSWELL CAP. PARTNERS LLC v. ACT

Bond requirements occur throughout both New York and federal law. See,e.g., N.Y. Ins. Law § 1213[c][1][A]…