Pena v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pena v. City of New York

192 A.D.2d 493, 597 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4418

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

DecidedApril 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 493 (Pena v. City of New York) 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

Pena v. City of New York, 192 A.D.2d 493, 597 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County [494]*494(Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 2, 1991, which granted plaintiffs motion to deem abandoned defendant-appellant’s prior, successful motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where defendant’s only excuse for serving its proposed order more than three months after the filing of the court’s decision to dismiss was inadvertence or oversight, and the decision to dismiss was based on plaintiffs own earlier failure to timely move for a default judgment, it was not an abuse of discretion to deem defendant’s motion abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 (see, Feldman v New York City Tr. Auth., 171 AD2d 473, 474). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County [494]*494(Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 2, 1991, which granted plaintiffs motion to deem abandoned defendant-appellant’s prior, successful motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where defendant’s only excuse for serving its proposed order more than three months after the filing of the court’s decision to dismiss was inadvertence or oversight, and the decision to dismiss was based on plaintiffs own earlier failure to timely move for a default judgment, it was not an abuse of discretion to deem defendant’s motion abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 (see, Feldman v New York City Tr. Auth., 171 AD2d 473, 474). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 493, 597 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack