Perez v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Perez

279 A.D.2d 463, 719 N.Y.S.2d 588, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 124

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 463 (Perez v. Perez) 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

Perez v. Perez, 279 A.D.2d 463, 719 N.Y.S.2d 588, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Arturo Perez and Carla Perez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated March 3, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to substitute counsel and restore the action to the trial calendar, and denied as academic their cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion and restoring this action to the trial calendar (see, Associated Aviation Underwriters v Island Helicopter Corp., 229 AD2d 409; see generally, Marco v Sachs, 10 NY2d 542). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, 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 personal injuries, the defendants Arturo Perez and Carla Perez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated March 3, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to substitute counsel and restore the action to the trial calendar, and denied as academic their cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion and restoring this action to the trial calendar (see, Associated Aviation Underwriters v Island Helicopter Corp., 229 AD2d 409; see generally, Marco v Sachs, 10 NY2d 542). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 463, 719 N.Y.S.2d 588, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-perez-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack