Novick v. Kurtz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Novick v. Kurtz

215 A.D.2d 358, 626 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4683

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 358 (Novick v. Kurtz) 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

Novick v. Kurtz, 215 A.D.2d 358, 626 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 13, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendant Theodore Kurtz to compel the plaintiff to accept service of his answer nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the defendant Kurtz to file a late answer. The delay on the part of the defendant was brief and the excuse for the delay was reasonable (see, CPLR 3012 [d]). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 13, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendant Theodore Kurtz to compel the plaintiff to accept service of his answer nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the defendant Kurtz to file a late answer. The delay on the part of the defendant was brief and the excuse for the delay was reasonable (see, CPLR 3012 [d]). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 358, 626 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novick-v-kurtz-nyappdiv-1995.