From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Senise v. Mackasek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 20, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.).


IAS's order entered August 10, 1990 recites that plaintiff's motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 3126 was returnable on March 13, 1990. In contrast, there is no support in the record for defendants' assertion, made in their brief, that such motion was adjourned to March 27, 1990. We therefore find that the motion was returnable on March 13, 1990, and that defendants' service of opposition papers on March 22, 1990 constituted a default on the motion (see, Romeo v Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 A.D.2d 688, 690 [motion court abused its discretion as a matter of law in accepting tardily submitted papers in opposition with no excuse having been offered for the lateness]). As a condition to vacating the default, we impose a money sanction of $500.

We note that the record contains no indications of any professional courtesies extended by either plaintiff's attorneys or defendants' attorneys concerning the implementation of this order, which directed four depositions over a period of nine days. When the first deposition did not take place as scheduled, a phone call might have gone far to straighten matters out.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Senise v. Mackasek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Senise v. Mackasek

Case Details

Full title:JOHN SENISE, Appellant, v. ROBERT A. MACKASEK et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
571 N.Y.S.2d 469

Citing Cases

TD Bank v. Ebad Fabrics Inc.

Thus, the court rejects the late opposition papers. See Mosheyva v Distefano, 288 AD2d 448 (2nd Dept. 2001);…

Silva v. Castro

Defendants failed to timely oppose plaintiffs motion (see Senise v Mackasek, 174 A.D.2d 522, 551 [1st Dept…