From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dime Sav. Bk. of Brooklyn v. Pine Drive Associates

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County
Feb 27, 1961
28 Misc. 2d 648 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)

Opinion

February 27, 1961

Tannenbaum Goldweber for Preferred Transmix Concrete, Inc., defendant.

William A. Anzalone for plaintiff.


Motion "for an order directing the plaintiff to accept the answer of the defendant Preferred Transmix Concrete, Inc.", is denied.

The movant was served with the summons and complaint on January 9, 1961. The answer was mailed on February 3, 1961, received and returned on February 6. 1961. No affidavit of merits is submitted, nor is any reasonable excuse given for the failure to serve the answer within 20 days after service of the complaint.

The observation may be made that the movant, even though it has defaulted in answering in the foreclosure action, is not precluded from proving its lien in a surplus money proceeding ( Matter of Lobbett v. Galpin, 228 App. Div. 65; Rules Civ. Prac., rules 262, 263).


Summaries of

Dime Sav. Bk. of Brooklyn v. Pine Drive Associates

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County
Feb 27, 1961
28 Misc. 2d 648 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
Case details for

Dime Sav. Bk. of Brooklyn v. Pine Drive Associates

Case Details

Full title:DIME SAVINGS BANK OF BROOKLYN, Plaintiff, v. PINE DRIVE ASSOCIATES, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County

Date published: Feb 27, 1961

Citations

28 Misc. 2d 648 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
212 N.Y.S.2d 111

Citing Cases

Riverhead Savings Bank v. Garone

The defendant-respondent T.L.C. was at all stages given all the notice the law requires, both with respect to…

Kulm Credit Union v. Harter

In re Evergreen Memorial Park Association, 308 F.2d 65 (3d Cir.). It was also held that a defendant, even…