Klemm v. Boscia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klemm v. Boscia

262 A.D.2d 534, 691 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7020

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

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 534 (Klemm v. Boscia) 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

Klemm v. Boscia, 262 A.D.2d 534, 691 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), entered April 28, 1998, and (2) an amended order of the same court, entered May 8, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to extend his time to answer.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 28, 1998, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the amended order entered May 8, 1998; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2004, inter alia, to extend his time to serve an answer to the complaint. The defendant established good cause for his brief six-day delay in serving an answer. In addition, he submitted an affidavit demonstrating the existence of a meritorious defense. Further, the delay was not willful and did not prejudice the plaintiff (see, A & J Concrete Corp. v Arker, 54 NY2d 870; Richard Kranis, P. C. v European Am. Bank, 208 AD2d 904). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Sullivan, 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 plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), entered April 28, 1998, and (2) an amended order of the same court, entered May 8, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter alia, to extend his time to answer.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 28, 1998, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the amended order entered May 8, 1998; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2004, inter alia, to extend his time to serve an answer to the complaint. The defendant established good cause for his brief six-day delay in serving an answer. In addition, he submitted an affidavit demonstrating the existence of a meritorious defense. Further, the delay was not willful and did not prejudice the plaintiff (see, A & J Concrete Corp. v Arker, 54 NY2d 870; Richard Kranis, P. C. v European Am. Bank, 208 AD2d 904). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 534, 691 N.Y.S.2d 335, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klemm-v-boscia-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack