Venezia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Venezia v. City of New York

280 A.D.2d 406, 720 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1730

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered on or about May 30, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion to extend its time to answer the amended complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s time to answer the amended complaint was properly extended upon a showing of a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely answer based on law office failure, and a meritorious defense (CPLR 3012 [d]; 2005; see, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 12-13; 38 Holding Corp. v City of New York, 179 AD2d 486, 487). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered on or about May 30, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion to extend its time to answer the amended complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s time to answer the amended complaint was properly extended upon a showing of a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely answer based on law office failure, and a meritorious defense (CPLR 3012 [d]; 2005; see, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 12-13; 38 Holding Corp. v City of New York, 179 AD2d 486, 487). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Venezia v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 406, 720 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 406 (Venezia v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related