Curry v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curry v. New York City Transit Authority

30 A.D.3d 299, 818 N.Y.S.2d 39

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

DecidedJune 22, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 299 (Curry v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Curry v. New York City Transit Authority, 30 A.D.3d 299, 818 N.Y.S.2d 39 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered January 24, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment because, inter alia, plaintiff did not show that defendant’s relatively short delay in serving its answer prejudiced him. Moreover, the delay was, at least in part, attributable to the fact that the named defendant is nonexistent, thus creating uncertainty about the identity of the actual entity intended to be sued (CPLR 3012 [d]; see DeMarco v Wyndham Intl., 299 AD2d 209 [2002]; Higgins v Bellet Constr. Co., 287 AD2d 377 [2001]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered January 24, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment because, inter alia, plaintiff did not show that defendant’s relatively short delay in serving its answer prejudiced him. Moreover, the delay was, at least in part, attributable to the fact that the named defendant is nonexistent, thus creating uncertainty about the identity of the actual entity intended to be sued (CPLR 3012 [d]; see DeMarco v Wyndham Intl., 299 AD2d 209 [2002]; Higgins v Bellet Constr. Co., 287 AD2d 377 [2001]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 299, 818 N.Y.S.2d 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack