Antonious v. Muhammed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antonious v. Muhammed

188 A.D.2d 399

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 399 (Antonious v. Muhammed) 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

Antonious v. Muhammed, 188 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 16, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motions for an extension of time to answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs’ prosecution of a duplicative action in Federal court created confusion, such that it cannot be said that defendants’ failure to timely serve answers in this action was deliberately dilatory or evinced an intention to abandon the defense of this action (see, Cohen v Pegalis & Wachsman, 99 AD2d 457; Marr v S.G.S.G. Constr. Corp., 89 AD2d 513). No prejudice is discernable from the relatively short delay, answers having been served in the identical Federal action that was being actively litigated (see, Cirano, S.p.A. v Pantstudio Ltd., 179 AD2d 361), and, as the IAS Court found, meritorious defenses having been raised. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 16, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motions for an extension of time to answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs’ prosecution of a duplicative action in Federal court created confusion, such that it cannot be said that defendants’ failure to timely serve answers in this action was deliberately dilatory or evinced an intention to abandon the defense of this action (see, Cohen v Pegalis & Wachsman, 99 AD2d 457; Marr v S.G.S.G. Constr. Corp., 89 AD2d 513). No prejudice is discernable from the relatively short delay, answers having been served in the identical Federal action that was being actively litigated (see, Cirano, S.p.A. v Pantstudio Ltd., 179 AD2d 361), and, as the IAS Court found, meritorious defenses having been raised. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonious-v-muhammed-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack