Keselman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keselman v. City of New York

56 A.D.2d 727, 867 N.Y.S.2d 684

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 727 (Keselman v. City of New York) 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

Keselman v. City of New York, 56 A.D.2d 727, 867 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County [728]*728(Miller, J.), dated March 12, 2008, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment against the defendants City of New York and Aníbal Martinez upon their failure to timely answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion. The defendants City of New York and Aníbal Martinez provided a reasonable excuse for their short delay in answering, which was neither willful nor prejudicial to the plaintiff and demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Harris v City of New York, 30 AD3d 461, 463-464 [2006]). Fisher, J.P, Lifson, Covello, Baltin and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County [728]*728(Miller, J.), dated March 12, 2008, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment against the defendants City of New York and Aníbal Martinez upon their failure to timely answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion. The defendants City of New York and Aníbal Martinez provided a reasonable excuse for their short delay in answering, which was neither willful nor prejudicial to the plaintiff and demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Harris v City of New York, 30 AD3d 461, 463-464 [2006]). Fisher, J.P, Lifson, Covello, Baltin and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 727, 867 N.Y.S.2d 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keselman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack