D'Angelo v. Picciallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Angelo v. Picciallo

262 A.D.2d 443, 691 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 443 (D'Angelo v. Picciallo) 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

D'Angelo v. Picciallo, 262 A.D.2d 443, 691 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated July 21, 1998, as denied their cross motion to vacate a stipulation between the parties.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion to vacate the stipulation between the parties in which the defendants waived the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in return for the plaintiffs granting them an extension of time to serve an answer (see, Morrison v Budget Rent A Car Sys., 230 AD2d 253). The defendants did not establish sufficient grounds to set aside the stipulation (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated July 21, 1998, as denied their cross motion to vacate a stipulation between the parties.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion to vacate the stipulation between the parties in which the defendants waived the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in return for the plaintiffs granting them an extension of time to serve an answer (see, Morrison v Budget Rent A Car Sys., 230 AD2d 253). The defendants did not establish sufficient grounds to set aside the stipulation (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 443, 691 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dangelo-v-picciallo-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack