Chorman v. New York Racing Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chorman v. New York Racing Ass'n

57 A.D.2d 584, 393 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11565

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

DecidedApril 18, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 584 (Chorman v. New York Racing Ass'n) 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

Chorman v. New York Racing Ass'n, 57 A.D.2d 584, 393 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated December 29, 1976, as denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215 (subd [c]). Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Under the circumstances here, sufficient cause was shown to bar the dismissal of the complaint and, accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have denied the cross motion. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hawkins, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated December 29, 1976, as denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215 (subd [c]). Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Under the circumstances here, sufficient cause was shown to bar the dismissal of the complaint and, accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have denied the cross motion. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hawkins, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 584, 393 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chorman-v-new-york-racing-assn-nyappdiv-1977.