Podgurski v. County of SufFolk

278 A.D.2d 397, 718 N.Y.S.2d 631, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13203

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated December 14, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for an extension of time to answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for an extension of time to answer the complaint where the delay was only four days (see, Kaiser v Delaney, 255 AD2d 362; Bungay v Joy Power Prods., 243 AD2d 527; Junior v City of New York, 85 AD2d 683). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Podgurski v. County of SufFolk, 278 A.D.2d 397, 718 N.Y.S.2d 631, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

278 A.D.2d 397 (Podgurski v. County of SufFolk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Junior v. City of New York
85 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Bungay v. Joy Power Products, Inc.
243 A.D.2d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Kaiser v. Delaney
255 A.D.2d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)