Shelley v. Perri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shelley v. Perri

3 A.D.3d 559, 770 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 723

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 559 (Shelley v. Perri) 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

Shelley v. Perri, 3 A.D.3d 559, 770 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Ford Motor Credit Company, doing business as Mazda American Credit appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated February 28, 2003, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to add it as a party defendant and to serve it with a supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 203 (b).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to add the appellant as a party defendant and to serve it with a supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 203 (b) (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173 [1995]; Mondello v New York Blood Ctr.-Greater N.Y. Blood Program, 80 NY2d 219 [1992]; Poulard v Papamihlopoulos, 254 AD2d 266 [1998]; Brock v Bua, 83 AD2d 61 [1981]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, 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, Ford Motor Credit Company, doing business as Mazda American Credit appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated February 28, 2003, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to add it as a party defendant and to serve it with a supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 203 (b).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to add the appellant as a party defendant and to serve it with a supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 203 (b) (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173 [1995]; Mondello v New York Blood Ctr.-Greater N.Y. Blood Program, 80 NY2d 219 [1992]; Poulard v Papamihlopoulos, 254 AD2d 266 [1998]; Brock v Bua, 83 AD2d 61 [1981]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 559, 770 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelley-v-perri-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack