Atlas defendant in New York

2023Contrary to the Atlas defendants' contentions, the language of the indemnification agreements applies to the attorneys' fees related to SureTec's efforts in protecting its interests and obligations under the supersedeas bond, and it was reasonable for SureTec to incur attorneys' fees when the Atlas defendants improperly attempted to alter SureTec's obligation under the supersedeas bond ( see Bier Pension Plan Trust v Estate of Schneierson , 74 NY2d 312, 315 ; Excelsior Capital, LLC v Superior Broadcasting Co., Inc. , 82 AD3d 696, 698 ; cf. American Motorists Ins.

2023Contrary to the Atlas defendants' contentions, the language of the indemnification agreements applies to the attorneys' fees related to SureTec's efforts in protecting its interests and obligations under the supersedeas bond, and it was reasonable for SureTec to incur attorneys' fees when the Atlas defendants improperly attempted to alter SureTec's obligation under the supersedeas bond ( see Bier Pension Plan Trust v Estate of Schneierson , 74 NY2d 312, 315 ; Excelsior Capital, LLC v Superior Broadcasting Co., Inc. , 82 AD3d 696, 698 ; cf. American Motorists Ins.

2023The Atlas defendants appeal. "[T]he right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the contract" ( Garcia v Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. , 196 AD3d 676, 679 , quoting Kader v City of N.Y., Hous.

2023The Atlas defendants appeal. "[T]he right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the contract" ( Garcia v Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. , 196 AD3d 676, 679 , quoting Kader v City of N.Y., Hous.

2023Preserv. & Dev. , 16 AD3d 461, 463 ).

2023Contrary to the Atlas defendants' contentions, the language of the indemnification agreements applies to the attorneys' fees related to SureTec's efforts in protecting its interests and obligations under the supersedeas bond, and it was reasonable for SureTec to incur attorneys' fees when the Atlas defendants improperly attempted to alter SureTec's obligation under the supersedeas bond ( see Bier Pension Plan Trust v Estate of Schneierson , 74 NY2d 312, 315 ; Excelsior Capital, LLC v Superior Broadcasting Co., Inc. , 82 AD3d 696, 698 ; cf. American Motorists Ins.

2023Contrary to the Atlas defendants' contentions, the language of the indemnification agreements applies to the attorneys' fees related to SureTec's efforts in protecting its interests and obligations under the supersedeas bond, and it was reasonable for SureTec to incur attorneys' fees when the Atlas defendants improperly attempted to alter SureTec's obligation under the supersedeas bond ( see Bier Pension Plan Trust v Estate of Schneierson , 74 NY2d 312, 315 ; Excelsior Capital, LLC v Superior Broadcasting Co., Inc. , 82 AD3d 696, 698 ; cf. American Motorists Ins.

2021"Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding" ( Blue Sky, LLC v Jerry's Self Stor., LLC , 145 AD3d 945, 946 ; see Gramatan Home Inv.

2005Contrary to their contention, the Atlas defendants failed to establish that their default was excusable pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1). “[B]are allegations of incompetence on the part of prior counsel” are insufficient to establish an excusable default under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (Spatz v Bajramoski, 214 AD2d 436 [1995]; accord Achampong v Weigelt, 240 AD2d 247, 248 [1997]; see also Beale v Yepes, 309 AD2d 886, 887 [2003]).

2005Contrary to their contention, the Atlas defendants failed to establish that their default was excusable pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1). “[B]are allegations of incompetence on the part of prior counsel” are insufficient to establish an excusable default under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) (Spatz v Bajramoski, 214 AD2d 436 [1995]; accord Achampong v Weigelt, 240 AD2d 247, 248 [1997]; see also Beale v Yepes, 309 AD2d 886, 887 [2003]).

2005We note, in passing, that the Atlas defendants had previously been sanctioned for their repeated failure to comply with discovery orders (see Huggins v Parkset Plumbing Supply, Inc., 7 AD3d 672 [2004]).

2005We note, in passing, that the Atlas defendants had previously been sanctioned for their repeated failure to comply with discovery orders (see Huggins v Parkset Plumbing Supply, Inc., 7 AD3d 672 [2004]).

2003We agree that Atlas neither justified its delayed discovery request (see Meath v Mishrick, 68 NY2d 992, 994-995 [1986]; Sloane v Repsher, 263 AD2d 906, 907 [1999]) nor demonstrated that further discovery may raise a triable issue of fact (see Halliday v Norton Co., 265 AD2d 614, 617 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 894 ; Fleet Bank v Tiger Racquet Fitness & Exercise Ctr., 255 AD2d 793, 795 [1998]).

2003Next, we discern no error in Supreme Court’s rejection of Atlas’s claim that plaintiff’s motion was premature in that discovery is incomplete, premised primarily on a notice to take the deposition of a Dwight employee which is dated well after the return date of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and more than six months after all other witnesses were deposed (see Fiore v Excelsior Ins., 276 AD2d 895 ; 897 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 755 [2001]).

1991It is evident that the conclusion reached in Atlas concerning the per se unconstitutionality of the Pennsylvania cognovit scheme is itself no longer valid in light of the subsequent Supreme Court decisions (see, Money Mgt. v Vetere, 107 Misc 2d 861, 863-864 ; In re PCH Assocs., 122 Bankr 181, 194-195 [SD NY] [questioning the continued validity of the *580 Atlas analysis in light of Overmyer and Swarb]; see also, Siegel, NY Prac § 300, at 430-431 [Prac 2d ed] [same]).

1987Under the circumstances presented, including the existence of a meritorious claim and the apparent lack of prejudice (cf., Woodward v City of New York, supra), it was not improper to deny Atlas’s motion.

1984We reject Lavin’s argument on this principle because it was never pleaded by plaintiff, nor was a motion made to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof (see Le Sawyer v Squillace, 14 AD2d 961, 962 , mot for lv to app den 11 NY2d 648 ).

1959While it seems that the claim was not within the exceptions contained in subdivision (4) of section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act (U. S. Code, tit. 11, § 35, subd. [4]; cf. Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co., 293 U. S. 328, 333 ; Frank Sheridan Jonas, Inc., v. Romanat, 144 N. Y.