Elkman v. Cord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elkman v. Cord

112 A.D.3d 489, 976 N.Y.S.2d 382

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 489 (Elkman v. Cord) 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

Elkman v. Cord, 112 A.D.3d 489, 976 N.Y.S.2d 382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered October 18, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[490]*490As the record shows that plaintiff timely filed a summons and complaint commencing the action, and paid the applicable filing fee, Supreme Court properly determined that the purported error in the method of the initial filing could be corrected or disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001 (see Goldenberg v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 16 NY3d 323 [2011]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered October 18, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[490]*490As the record shows that plaintiff timely filed a summons and complaint commencing the action, and paid the applicable filing fee, Supreme Court properly determined that the purported error in the method of the initial filing could be corrected or disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001 (see Goldenberg v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 16 NY3d 323 [2011]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 489, 976 N.Y.S.2d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elkman-v-cord-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack