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

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 244 (Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. v. Higgins) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 244, 700 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mail-boxes-etc-usa-inc-v-higgins-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack