Acevedo v. DePena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acevedo v. DePena

6 A.D.3d 636, 775 N.Y.S.2d 181

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 636 (Acevedo v. DePena) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acevedo v. DePena, 6 A.D.3d 636, 775 N.Y.S.2d 181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated May 28, 2003, which denied their motion to extend the time to file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ second motion to extend the time to file a note of issue, given the delay of more than 2k years in conducting any further discovery and in properly filing a note of issue, an inadequate excuse for the delay, and prejudice to the defendants (see Dhaliwal v Long Boat Taxi, 305 AD2d 449 [2003]; Carota v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 272 AD2d 428 [2000]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated May 28, 2003, which denied their motion to extend the time to file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ second motion to extend the time to file a note of issue, given the delay of more than 2k years in conducting any further discovery and in properly filing a note of issue, an inadequate excuse for the delay, and prejudice to the defendants (see Dhaliwal v Long Boat Taxi, 305 AD2d 449 [2003]; Carota v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 272 AD2d 428 [2000]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 636, 775 N.Y.S.2d 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acevedo-v-depena-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack