Crawford v. Codd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crawford v. Codd

54 A.D.2d 878, 388 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14667

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 878 (Crawford v. Codd) 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

Crawford v. Codd, 54 A.D.2d 878, 388 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 17, 1975, is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, on the opinion of Mangan, J. at Special Term. We add that the few days default by respondents in the service of the notice of motion to dismiss the petition (served three days before the date of hearing rather than five days before the date noticed for hearing as required by CPLR 7804, subds [c] and [f]) was a mere irregularity which Special Term could disregard under CPLR 2001, or Special Term could extend respondents’ time under CPLR 2004; and the Special Term’s granting respondents’ motion implicitly granted this relief too. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 17, 1975, is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, on the opinion of Mangan, J. at Special Term. We add that the few days default by respondents in the service of the notice of motion to dismiss the petition (served three days before the date of hearing rather than five days before the date noticed for hearing as required by CPLR 7804, subds [c] and [f]) was a mere irregularity which Special Term could disregard under CPLR 2001, or Special Term could extend respondents’ time under CPLR 2004; and the Special Term’s granting respondents’ motion implicitly granted this relief too. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 878, 388 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-codd-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack