Arroyo v. Feggoudakis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arroyo v. Feggoudakis

21 A.D.3d 975, 800 N.Y.S.2d 846

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 975 (Arroyo v. Feggoudakis) 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

Arroyo v. Feggoudakis, 21 A.D.3d 975, 800 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated January 23, 2002, which denied her motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendants’ default in answering, and granted the defendants’ cross motion to extend their time to answer and to compel her to accept their late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment upon the defendants’ default in answering and granting the defendants’ cross motion to extend their time to answer and to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer (see Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693, 695 [1983]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated January 23, 2002, which denied her motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendants’ default in answering, and granted the defendants’ cross motion to extend their time to answer and to compel her to accept their late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment upon the defendants’ default in answering and granting the defendants’ cross motion to extend their time to answer and to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer (see Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693, 695 [1983]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 975, 800 N.Y.S.2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arroyo-v-feggoudakis-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack