Pronti v. Hogan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pronti v. Hogan

278 A.D.2d 841, 718 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 841 (Pronti v. Hogan) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 841, 718 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pronti-v-hogan-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack