Reid v. Unique Van Service, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reid v. Unique Van Service, Inc.

284 A.D.2d 520, 726 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6826

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

DecidedJune 25, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 520 (Reid v. Unique Van Service, Inc.) 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

Reid v. Unique Van Service, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 520, 726 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Unique Van Service, Inc., and Donald Wane McLean appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated July 18, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to deem the facts set forth in a notice to admit to be admitted by those defendants.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to deem the facts set forth in a notice to admit to be admitted by the appellants is denied.

[521]*521The Supreme Court erred in deeming the appellants to have admitted the facts set forth in a notice to admit served on them by the plaintiff. The only remedy for an alleged unreasonable denial is an award of fees and costs pursuant to CPLR 3123 (c) (see, Glasser v City of New York, 265 AD2d 526; Belfer v Dictograph Prods., 275 App Div 824). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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 defendants Unique Van Service, Inc., and Donald Wane McLean appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated July 18, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to deem the facts set forth in a notice to admit to be admitted by those defendants.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to deem the facts set forth in a notice to admit to be admitted by the appellants is denied.

[521]*521The Supreme Court erred in deeming the appellants to have admitted the facts set forth in a notice to admit served on them by the plaintiff. The only remedy for an alleged unreasonable denial is an award of fees and costs pursuant to CPLR 3123 (c) (see, Glasser v City of New York, 265 AD2d 526; Belfer v Dictograph Prods., 275 App Div 824). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 520, 726 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-v-unique-van-service-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack