Kheyfets v. El Amari, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kheyfets v. El Amari, Inc.

231 A.D.2d 684, 647 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9713

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 684 (Kheyfets v. El Amari, 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

Kheyfets v. El Amari, Inc., 231 A.D.2d 684, 647 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant General Trading appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated August 24, 1995, which, upon granting the plaintiffs motion to reargue (1) his prior motion for leave to enter a default judgment against it and (2) its motion to dismiss the complaint, denied its motion and conditionally granted the plaintiffs motion unless General Trading served an answer within 30 days.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff was not required to pay a new fee upon filing a supplemental summons and amended complaint naming the defendant General Trading as an additional party in the action (see, CPLR 305 [a]; Siegel, Practice Review, No 43, Apr. 1996, at 2; cf., Matter of Gershel v Porr, 226 AD2d 636; Matter of Vetrone v Mackin, 216 AD2d 839). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant General Trading appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated August 24, 1995, which, upon granting the plaintiffs motion to reargue (1) his prior motion for leave to enter a default judgment against it and (2) its motion to dismiss the complaint, denied its motion and conditionally granted the plaintiffs motion unless General Trading served an answer within 30 days.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff was not required to pay a new fee upon filing a supplemental summons and amended complaint naming the defendant General Trading as an additional party in the action (see, CPLR 305 [a]; Siegel, Practice Review, No 43, Apr. 1996, at 2; cf., Matter of Gershel v Porr, 226 AD2d 636; Matter of Vetrone v Mackin, 216 AD2d 839). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 684, 647 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kheyfets-v-el-amari-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack