City of New York v. Healy/Yonkers/Atlas-Gest

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Healy/Yonkers/Atlas-Gest

249 A.D.2d 102, 670 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051

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

DecidedApril 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 102 (City of New York v. Healy/Yonkers/Atlas-Gest) 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

City of New York v. Healy/Yonkers/Atlas-Gest, 249 A.D.2d 102, 670 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered September 25, 1997, denying plaintiff City of New York’s motion to extend the time to respond to defendant Davidson Pipe Supply Co., Inc.’s notice to admit, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion granted and plaintiff directed to serve a response within 20 days of service upon plaintiffs attorney of this Court’s order.

The motion to extend plaintiffs time to respond to the notice to admit was improvidently denied. The delay, due to oversight, in responding to the notice at the time plaintiffs counsel sought defendant Davidson’s consent to an extension was only a matter of days. Davidson did not and cannot show that it suffered any prejudice from so short a delay. In such circumstances, the motion should have been granted. Accordingly, we reverse and grant the relief sought.

We do not reach plaintiffs challenge to the propriety of the notice to admit since this claim, not having been raised before the IAS Court, is not properly before us. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered September 25, 1997, denying plaintiff City of New York’s motion to extend the time to respond to defendant Davidson Pipe Supply Co., Inc.’s notice to admit, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion granted and plaintiff directed to serve a response within 20 days of service upon plaintiffs attorney of this Court’s order.

The motion to extend plaintiffs time to respond to the notice to admit was improvidently denied. The delay, due to oversight, in responding to the notice at the time plaintiffs counsel sought defendant Davidson’s consent to an extension was only a matter of days. Davidson did not and cannot show that it suffered any prejudice from so short a delay. In such circumstances, the motion should have been granted. Accordingly, we reverse and grant the relief sought.

We do not reach plaintiffs challenge to the propriety of the notice to admit since this claim, not having been raised before the IAS Court, is not properly before us. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 102, 670 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-healyyonkersatlas-gest-nyappdiv-1998.