Robertson v. House of God Which Is the Church of the Living God the Pillar & Ground of the Truth Without Controversy, Inc.

278 A.D.2d 884, 718 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13400

This text of 278 A.D.2d 884 (Robertson v. House of God Which Is the Church of the Living God the Pillar & Ground of the Truth Without Controversy, 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
Robertson v. House of God Which Is the Church of the Living God the Pillar & Ground of the Truth Without Controversy, Inc., 278 A.D.2d 884, 718 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 based on plaintiffs failure to file a timely note of issue. Plaintiff established a “good and meritorious cause of action” (CPLR 3216 [e]) and a justifiable excuse for the delay (see, Feeney v Benderson Dev. Co., 255 AD2d 965; see also, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.

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

Related

Baczkowski v. D.A. Collins Construction Co.
678 N.E.2d 460 (New York Court of Appeals, 1997)
Feeney v. Benderson Development Co.
255 A.D.2d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 884, 718 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-house-of-god-which-is-the-church-of-the-living-god-the-pillar-nyappdiv-2000.