Monteferrante v. New York City Fire Department

New York Court of Appeals

Monteferrante v. New York City Fire Department

421 N.E.2d 118, 53 N.Y.2d 653, 438 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2314

New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 26, 1981·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The court determined that defendant Uniformed Firefighters Association’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint against it (for plaintiff’s failure to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days following demand) should have been granted. That determination was made, inter alia, in the exercise of discretion. On this record that determination did not constitute an" abuse of discretion nor was it otherwise affected by an error of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The court determined that defendant Uniformed Firefighters Association’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint against it (for plaintiff’s failure to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days following demand) should have been granted. That determination was made, inter alia, in the exercise of discretion. On this record that determination did not constitute an" abuse of discretion nor was it otherwise affected by an error of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Monteferrante v. New York City Fire Department, 421 N.E.2d 118, 53 N.Y.2d 653, 438 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2314 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

421 N.E.2d 118 (Monteferrante v. New York City Fire Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related