Attie v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Attie v. City of New York

221 A.D.2d 274, 634 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12172

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 274 (Attie v. City of New York) 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

Attie v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 274, 634 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about July 13, 1995, which, inter alia, granted appellant’s motion for vacatur of the default order dated May 8, 1995, but adhered to the prior decision insofar as refusing to strike the note of issue, and in severing the fourth-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Denial of severance would likely have caused an inordinate delay of trial of the main action (cf., Leavitt v New York City Tr. Auth., 111 AD2d 907, 908). Plaintiff completed discovery and filed a note of issue pursuant to the IAS Court’s orders and would be prejudiced by such delay (see, Miro v Branford House, 174 AD2d 363). Appellant did not take the opportunity to conduct a physical examination within the scheduled deadline. In these circumstances, the motion to strike the note of issue was properly denied (see, Hamlin v Mensch, 205 AD2d 452; Levine v McFarland, 98 AD2d 795). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about July 13, 1995, which, inter alia, granted appellant’s motion for vacatur of the default order dated May 8, 1995, but adhered to the prior decision insofar as refusing to strike the note of issue, and in severing the fourth-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Denial of severance would likely have caused an inordinate delay of trial of the main action (cf., Leavitt v New York City Tr. Auth., 111 AD2d 907, 908). Plaintiff completed discovery and filed a note of issue pursuant to the IAS Court’s orders and would be prejudiced by such delay (see, Miro v Branford House, 174 AD2d 363). Appellant did not take the opportunity to conduct a physical examination within the scheduled deadline. In these circumstances, the motion to strike the note of issue was properly denied (see, Hamlin v Mensch, 205 AD2d 452; Levine v McFarland, 98 AD2d 795). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 274, 634 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attie-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack