Howard v. Ciorciari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard v. Ciorciari

111 A.D.2d 370, 489 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51468

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

DecidedMay 28, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.2d 370 (Howard v. Ciorciari) 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

Howard v. Ciorciari, 111 A.D.2d 370, 489 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Kelly, J.), entered October 6, 1983, as denied their cross motion for leave to enter a judgment against defendant Ryan based upon his default in appearing and directed plaintiffs’ attorneys to serve a copy of the complaint upon defendant Ryan’s attorneys within 20 days of the entry of the order.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On the totality of the circumstances recited and in light of CPLR 2005, 3012 (d), it was a proper exercise of discretion to relieve defendant Ryan of his default in appearing. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an automobile negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Kelly, J.), entered October 6, 1983, as denied their cross motion for leave to enter a judgment against defendant Ryan based upon his default in appearing and directed plaintiffs’ attorneys to serve a copy of the complaint upon defendant Ryan’s attorneys within 20 days of the entry of the order.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On the totality of the circumstances recited and in light of CPLR 2005, 3012 (d), it was a proper exercise of discretion to relieve defendant Ryan of his default in appearing. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 370, 489 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-ciorciari-nyappdiv-1985.