Elliot v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elliot v. New York City Housing Authority

187 A.D.2d 410, 590 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12539

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 410 (Elliot v. New York City Housing 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

Elliot v. New York City Housing Authority, 187 A.D.2d 410, 590 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a personal injury action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated July 10, 1989, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate her default in serving a bill of particulars, on condition that she serve a verified bill of particulars within 30 days following her receipt of a copy of the order and pay $500 as costs and sanctions to the defendant’s attorneys, and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in conditionally granting the plaintiff’s motion to vacate her default in serving a bill of particulars and in denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for her failure to supply the bill of particulars demanded by the defendant, and also [411]*411had a meritorious cause of action (see, Gutenplan v Dauman, 154 AD2d 337). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In a personal injury action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated July 10, 1989, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate her default in serving a bill of particulars, on condition that she serve a verified bill of particulars within 30 days following her receipt of a copy of the order and pay $500 as costs and sanctions to the defendant’s attorneys, and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in conditionally granting the plaintiff’s motion to vacate her default in serving a bill of particulars and in denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for her failure to supply the bill of particulars demanded by the defendant, and also [411]*411had a meritorious cause of action (see, Gutenplan v Dauman, 154 AD2d 337). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 410, 590 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliot-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack