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

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 818 (Village of Parish v. Weichert) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 818, 737 N.Y.S.2d 575, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-parish-v-weichert-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack