Pinkham v. Siemen's Analytical X-Ray Instruments, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinkham v. Siemen's Analytical X-Ray Instruments, Inc.

198 A.D.2d 898, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11556

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 898 (Pinkham v. Siemen's Analytical X-Ray Instruments, Inc.) 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

Pinkham v. Siemen's Analytical X-Ray Instruments, Inc., 198 A.D.2d 898, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) and to grant plaintiff’s cross motion permitting late service of the complaint. The court’s decision to excuse plaintiff’s delay caused by law office failure was within its sound discretion (see, Special Prods. Mfg. v Douglass, 159 AD2d 847, 848), and plaintiff’s submissions in response to defendant’s motion were sufficient to show merit (see, Weis v Weis, 138 AD2d 968, 969; Tonello v Carborundum Co., 91 AD2d 1169, 1170, affd 59 NY2d 720, rearg denied 60 NY2d 587). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) and to grant plaintiff’s cross motion permitting late service of the complaint. The court’s decision to excuse plaintiff’s delay caused by law office failure was within its sound discretion (see, Special Prods. Mfg. v Douglass, 159 AD2d 847, 848), and plaintiff’s submissions in response to defendant’s motion were sufficient to show merit (see, Weis v Weis, 138 AD2d 968, 969; Tonello v Carborundum Co., 91 AD2d 1169, 1170, affd 59 NY2d 720, rearg denied 60 NY2d 587). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 898, 606 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkham-v-siemens-analytical-x-ray-instruments-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack