Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Puija v. Dintino

Puija v. Dintino

2 A.D.3d 701, 768 N.Y.S.2d 614
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 2003
StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 701 (Puija v. Dintino) 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
Puija v. Dintino, 2 A.D.3d 701, 768 N.Y.S.2d 614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated January 29, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v Arthur Andersen & Co., 60 NY2d 693 [1983]; Parker v City of New York, 272 AD2d 310 [2000]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

FID. & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
455 N.E.2d 1259 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Parker v. City of New York
272 A.D.2d 310 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 701, 768 N.Y.S.2d 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puija-v-dintino-nyappdiv-2003.