Cirino v. Gkanios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cirino v. Gkanios

208 A.D.2d 584, 618 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9578

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 584 (Cirino v. Gkanios) 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

Cirino v. Gkanios, 208 A.D.2d 584, 618 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for assault and battery, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered May 3, 1993, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for an enlargement of time to serve a complaint to the extent of giving her 45 days from the date of entry of the order to serve the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in treating the plaintiff’s pro se order to show cause and supporting papers, inter alia, as opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). In addition, those papers sufficiently set forth that the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay in not timely serving the complaint, and demonstrated the meritorious nature of her action (see, Innerarity v County of Westchester, 144 AD2d 645; Niedermeier v [585]*585Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 143 AD2d 78). Finally, the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs action was untimely commenced is without merit (see, CPLR 215 [8]). Mengano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 assault and battery, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered May 3, 1993, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for an enlargement of time to serve a complaint to the extent of giving her 45 days from the date of entry of the order to serve the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in treating the plaintiff’s pro se order to show cause and supporting papers, inter alia, as opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). In addition, those papers sufficiently set forth that the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay in not timely serving the complaint, and demonstrated the meritorious nature of her action (see, Innerarity v County of Westchester, 144 AD2d 645; Niedermeier v [585]*585Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 143 AD2d 78). Finally, the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs action was untimely commenced is without merit (see, CPLR 215 [8]). Mengano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 584, 618 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cirino-v-gkanios-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack