Van Man Adhesives Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Van Man Adhesives Corp. v. City of New York

236 A.D.2d 465, 653 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1212

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 465 (Van Man Adhesives Corp. v. City of New York) 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

Van Man Adhesives Corp. v. City of New York, 236 A.D.2d 465, 653 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for alleged civil rights violations, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated January 10, 1996, as granted the municipal defendants’ motion to compel them to accept late service of their verified answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in compelling the plaintiffs to accept the verified answer, which was untimely served (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Mondrone v Lakeview Auto Sales & Serv., 170 AD2d 586). Considering the absence of prejudice to the plaintiffs, the meritorious nature of the defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree that the lateness in serving the answer should be excused (see, Albin v First Nationwide Network Mtge. Co., 188 AD2d 575; I.J. Handa, P. C. v Imperato, 159 AD2d 484). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for alleged civil rights violations, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated January 10, 1996, as granted the municipal defendants’ motion to compel them to accept late service of their verified answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in compelling the plaintiffs to accept the verified answer, which was untimely served (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Mondrone v Lakeview Auto Sales & Serv., 170 AD2d 586). Considering the absence of prejudice to the plaintiffs, the meritorious nature of the defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree that the lateness in serving the answer should be excused (see, Albin v First Nationwide Network Mtge. Co., 188 AD2d 575; I.J. Handa, P. C. v Imperato, 159 AD2d 484). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 465, 653 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-man-adhesives-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack