DeCesare v. Feldmeier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeCesare v. Feldmeier

154 A.D.2d 320, 547 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13598

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 320 (DeCesare v. Feldmeier) 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

DeCesare v. Feldmeier, 154 A.D.2d 320, 547 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita R. Florio, J.), entered April 7, 1989, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to permit them to serve and file a reply and denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, sever their counterclaims and permit them to move for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court was not precluded from exercising its discretion to excuse the delay or default as a result of law office failure on condition and to the extent of requiring plaintiffs’ counsel to submit the proposed reply and affidavit of merits within 30 days after filing of the order and payment of $500 by plain[321]*321tiffs’ counsel to defendants and their counsel (CPLR 2005, 3012 [d]). This is particularly so because of the prior proceedings herein. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita R. Florio, J.), entered April 7, 1989, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to permit them to serve and file a reply and denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, sever their counterclaims and permit them to move for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court was not precluded from exercising its discretion to excuse the delay or default as a result of law office failure on condition and to the extent of requiring plaintiffs’ counsel to submit the proposed reply and affidavit of merits within 30 days after filing of the order and payment of $500 by plain[321]*321tiffs’ counsel to defendants and their counsel (CPLR 2005, 3012 [d]). This is particularly so because of the prior proceedings herein. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 320, 547 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decesare-v-feldmeier-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack