Hayes v. Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Berman

249 A.D.2d 881, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4836

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

DecidedApril 30, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 881 (Hayes v. Berman) 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

Hayes v. Berman, 249 A.D.2d 881, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered October 2, 1997 in Schenectady County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve a complaint.

In view of plaintiff’s minimal and nonprejudicial nine-day default in service of the complaint, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the action (CPLR 3012 [b]) and granting plaintiff’s cross motion to compel acceptance of the untimely served pleading [882]*882(CPLR 3012 [d]), notwithstanding plaintiffs failure to tender an excuse for the delay or to establish a meritorious cause of action (see, Mills v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 216 AD2d 828; Skrabalak v Rock, 175 AD2d 976; Lehigh Val. R. R. Co. v North Am. Van Lines, 25 AD2d 923; compare, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered October 2, 1997 in Schenectady County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve a complaint.

In view of plaintiff’s minimal and nonprejudicial nine-day default in service of the complaint, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the action (CPLR 3012 [b]) and granting plaintiff’s cross motion to compel acceptance of the untimely served pleading [882]*882(CPLR 3012 [d]), notwithstanding plaintiffs failure to tender an excuse for the delay or to establish a meritorious cause of action (see, Mills v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 216 AD2d 828; Skrabalak v Rock, 175 AD2d 976; Lehigh Val. R. R. Co. v North Am. Van Lines, 25 AD2d 923; compare, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 881, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-berman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack