Puija v. Dintino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Puija v. Dintino

2 A.D.3d 701, 768 N.Y.S.2d 614

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 2003·Published

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

— 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.

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

Pincite

2 A.D.3d 701 (Puija v. Dintino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related