Pronti v. Hogan

278 A.D.2d 841, 718 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 2000·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In the absence of any showing of confusion or prejudice to defendant, Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to strike the summons and complaint on the ground that they were not signed in accordance with the requirement set forth in 22 NYCRR 130-1.la (a) (see, CPLR 2001; cf., Kovilic Constr. Co. v Missbrenner, 106 F3d 768, 772; Price v United States Navy, 39 F3d 1011, 1014-1015; United States v Kasuboski, 834 F2d 1345, 1348-1349). The purposes of the rule are furthered where, as here, the court exercises its discretion to permit plaintiff leave to file and serve a properly [842]*842signed pleading. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

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

Pronti v. Hogan, 278 A.D.2d 841, 718 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

278 A.D.2d 841 (Pronti v. Hogan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Silverberg
201 A.D.3d 695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
The Fitness Inst., Inc. v. Hallac
2020 NY Slip Op 07788 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Green v. Tierney
59 A.D.3d 900 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Edward Shapiro, P.C.
9 Misc. 3d 369 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2005)
Financial Network Investment Corp. v. Becker
305 A.D.2d 187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)