Richard Kranis, P. C. v. European American Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richard Kranis, P. C. v. European American Bank

208 A.D.2d 904, 617 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10691

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 31, 1994·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated June 14,1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for an extension of time to serve its answer and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for a default judgment.

[905] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion for an extension of time to serve an answer pursuant to CPLR 2004 (see, Salzman & Salzman v Gardiner, 100 AD2d 846). Since the defendant’s motion was made after the expiration of time in which to serve its answer the verified answer appended to its motion papers was sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the defendant provide an affidavit of merit (see, CPLR 105 [t]; Buderwitz v Cunningham, 101 AD2d 821). We reject both parties’ claims for sanctions and costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated June 14,1993, which granted the defendant’s motion for an extension of time to serve its answer and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for a default judgment.

[905] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion for an extension of time to serve an answer pursuant to CPLR 2004 (see, Salzman & Salzman v Gardiner, 100 AD2d 846). Since the defendant’s motion was made after the expiration of time in which to serve its answer the verified answer appended to its motion papers was sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the defendant provide an affidavit of merit (see, CPLR 105 [t]; Buderwitz v Cunningham, 101 AD2d 821). We reject both parties’ claims for sanctions and costs pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Richard Kranis, P. C. v. European American Bank, 208 A.D.2d 904, 617 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

208 A.D.2d 904 (Richard Kranis, P. C. v. European American Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related