From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marine Midland Bank v. Cramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1991
177 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 15, 1991

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

Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant failed to establish that the alleged newly discovered evidence, offered on his motion to vacate plaintiff's judgment against him (see, Marine Midland Bank v. Daubney Bowling Enters., 136 A.D.2d 963, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 810), could not have been discovered prior to judgment through the exercise of ordinary diligence or that the proffered evidence would, if accurate, have affected the result in the prior proceeding (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). Accordingly, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion (see, Mully v. Drayn, 51 A.D.2d 660; Wittemeyer v. Martin, 32 A.D.2d 597; see also, Matter of Commercial Structures v. City of Syracuse, 97 A.D.2d 965).

We have examined the other issues raised on appeal and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

Marine Midland Bank v. Cramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1991
177 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Marine Midland Bank v. Cramer

Case Details

Full title:MARINE MIDLAND BANK N.A., Respondent, v. MORRIS CRAMER, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Walker v. Carroll

We likewise affirm the order in appeal No. 2. Even assuming, arguendo, that the mother's request for relief…