Gazes v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gazes v. Hamilton

299 A.D.2d 216, 749 N.Y.S.2d 142, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10794

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 216 (Gazes v. Hamilton) 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

Gazes v. Hamilton, 299 A.D.2d 216, 749 N.Y.S.2d 142, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about May 9, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion to modify a prior order of the same court and Justice entered December 23, 1999 to the extent of extending defendants’ time to serve an answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in granting defendants additional time to serve and file an answer to plaintiffs complaint, while imposing a $1,500 sanction upon defendants’ counsel (see Khanna v Premium Food & Sports Enter., 279 AD2d 508). Under the circumstances, defendants provided an excuse for their delay that was sufficiently reasonable to warrant the relief provided. Defendants have also made a suitable showing that they have a meritorious defense. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs remaining claims. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Rosenberger and Mar-low, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about May 9, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion to modify a prior order of the same court and Justice entered December 23, 1999 to the extent of extending defendants’ time to serve an answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in granting defendants additional time to serve and file an answer to plaintiffs complaint, while imposing a $1,500 sanction upon defendants’ counsel (see Khanna v Premium Food & Sports Enter., 279 AD2d 508). Under the circumstances, defendants provided an excuse for their delay that was sufficiently reasonable to warrant the relief provided. Defendants have also made a suitable showing that they have a meritorious defense. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs remaining claims. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Buckley, Rosenberger and Mar-low, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 216, 749 N.Y.S.2d 142, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gazes-v-hamilton-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack