Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co.

265 A.D.2d 470, 696 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 470 (Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co.) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 470, 696 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piccirillo-v-scarlino-fuel-oil-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack