Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins

268 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins. Read the opinion of the Court — 281 A.D.2d 176 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 6, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Order, [245]*245Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered April 8, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for an order striking plaintiffs answer to defendants’ counterclaims and directing a default judgment on the counterclaims (denominated a motion for summary judgment), and granted plaintiffs cross motion to the extent of granting plaintiff leave to serve a reply to counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court’s determination excusing late service of a reply to counterclaims, which was a few days late at most, constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see, Continental Cas. Co. v Cozzolino Constr. Corp., 120 AD2d 779). We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, [245]*245Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered April 8, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for an order striking plaintiffs answer to defendants’ counterclaims and directing a default judgment on the counterclaims (denominated a motion for summary judgment), and granted plaintiffs cross motion to the extent of granting plaintiff leave to serve a reply to counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court’s determination excusing late service of a reply to counterclaims, which was a few days late at most, constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see, Continental Cas. Co. v Cozzolino Constr. Corp., 120 AD2d 779). We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins, 268 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

268 A.D.2d 244 (Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related