Village of Parish v. Weichert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Village of Parish v. Weichert

291 A.D.2d 818, 737 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 1, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Oswego County (Nicholson, J.), entered November 20, 2000, that extended the time for plaintiff to serve a reply to the counterclaim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in extending the time for plaintiff to serve a reply to the counterclaim. Plaintiff established a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious defense to the counterclaim, there is no indication that its failure to serve a timely reply was willful, the delay did not result in any prejudice to defendant, and public policy favors resolving cases on their merits rather than based on legal technicalities (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Sippin v Gallardo, 287 AD2d 703; Theis v Langworthy, 270 AD2d 954; Kondolf v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 1021; Cleary v East Syracuse-Minoa Cent. School Dist., 248 AD2d 1005). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Oswego County (Nicholson, J.), entered November 20, 2000, that extended the time for plaintiff to serve a reply to the counterclaim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in extending the time for plaintiff to serve a reply to the counterclaim. Plaintiff established a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious defense to the counterclaim, there is no indication that its failure to serve a timely reply was willful, the delay did not result in any prejudice to defendant, and public policy favors resolving cases on their merits rather than based on legal technicalities (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Sippin v Gallardo, 287 AD2d 703; Theis v Langworthy, 270 AD2d 954; Kondolf v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 1021; Cleary v East Syracuse-Minoa Cent. School Dist., 248 AD2d 1005). Present — Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Village of Parish v. Weichert, 291 A.D.2d 818, 737 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

291 A.D.2d 818 (Village of Parish v. Weichert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related