Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co.

265 A.D.2d 470, 696 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 18, 1999·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated September 16, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for leave to serve a late answer and denied her cross motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion for leave to serve a late answer and denying the plaintiff’s cross motion (see, Lichtman v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 236 AD2d 373; Richard Kranis, P. C. v European Am. Bank, 208 AD2d 904). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co., 265 A.D.2d 470, 696 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

265 A.D.2d 470 (Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goldman v. City of New York
287 A.D.2d 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)