Hughes v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Binghamton, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hughes v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Binghamton, Inc.

39 A.D.2d 624, 331 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778

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

DecidedApril 27, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 624 (Hughes v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Binghamton, Inc.) 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

Hughes v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Binghamton, Inc., 39 A.D.2d 624, 331 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Broome County, which granted plaintiffs leave of 20 days within which to serve a complaint and which provided, upon compliance, that plaintiffs’ default in serving a complaint more than 12 months after service of a summons be excused. Appellant moved for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]), and the court’s failure to grant its motion was an abuse of discretion. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking from the decretal paragraph so much thereof as grants a 20-day extension of time to serve a complaint, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. (CPLR 3012, subd. [b]; Shapiro v. Exchange Mut. Ins. Co., 37 A D 2d 879; Harris v. Hampton Hotel Corp., 36 A D 2d 999.) Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Simons and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Broome County, which granted plaintiffs leave of 20 days within which to serve a complaint and which provided, upon compliance, that plaintiffs’ default in serving a complaint more than 12 months after service of a summons be excused. Appellant moved for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]), and the court’s failure to grant its motion was an abuse of discretion. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking from the decretal paragraph so much thereof as grants a 20-day extension of time to serve a complaint, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. (CPLR 3012, subd. [b]; Shapiro v. Exchange Mut. Ins. Co., 37 A D 2d 879; Harris v. Hampton Hotel Corp., 36 A D 2d 999.) Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Simons and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 624, 331 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-seven-up-bottling-co-of-binghamton-inc-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack