Conti v. Valinoti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conti v. Valinoti

206 A.D.2d 345, 614 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7123

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 345 (Conti v. Valinoti) 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

Conti v. Valinoti, 206 A.D.2d 345, 614 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.) dated January 4, 1993, which denied their motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion to the extent of directing them to accept the defendant’s answer and discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion and granting the defendant’s cross motion. The defendant set forth a meritorious defense; his delay in serving his answer did not result in prejudice to the plaintiffs, and there was no showing that the delay was in any way deliberate (see, Henderson Murphy v D. V. Waste Control Corp., 124 AD2d 573). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy 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 personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.) dated January 4, 1993, which denied their motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion to the extent of directing them to accept the defendant’s answer and discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion and granting the defendant’s cross motion. The defendant set forth a meritorious defense; his delay in serving his answer did not result in prejudice to the plaintiffs, and there was no showing that the delay was in any way deliberate (see, Henderson Murphy v D. V. Waste Control Corp., 124 AD2d 573). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 345, 614 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conti-v-valinoti-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack