Smith v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.

35 A.D.3d 840, 825 N.Y.S.2d 378

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 840 (Smith v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.) 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

Smith v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 35 A.D.3d 840, 825 N.Y.S.2d 378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), dated May 2, 2005, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action, restore the action to the active calendar, and extend her time to file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is reversed on the facts and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion to vacate dismissal of the action, restore the action to the active calendar, and extend the [841]*841time to file a note of issue is granted, and the plaintiffs time to file a note of issue is extended until 60 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion (see Davis v Goodsell, 6 AD3d 382 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Skelos, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), dated May 2, 2005, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action, restore the action to the active calendar, and extend her time to file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is reversed on the facts and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion to vacate dismissal of the action, restore the action to the active calendar, and extend the [841]*841time to file a note of issue is granted, and the plaintiffs time to file a note of issue is extended until 60 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion (see Davis v Goodsell, 6 AD3d 382 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 840, 825 N.Y.S.2d 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-dun-bradstreet-corp-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack