Wilson v. Sawmill Woodworking, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Sawmill Woodworking, Inc.

289 A.D.2d 401, 734 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12190

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 401 (Wilson v. Sawmill Woodworking, Inc.) 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

Wilson v. Sawmill Woodworking, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 401, 734 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated April 9, 2001, which denied her motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendants Sawmill Woodworking, Inc., and Ben-Stone Holding Corp., upon their default in appearing or answering, and granted the cross motion of those defendants for leave to serve a late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion and granting the respondents’ cross motion (see, St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr. v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 282 AD2d 593; Trent v Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Ctr., 277 AD2d 444). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, 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, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated April 9, 2001, which denied her motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendants Sawmill Woodworking, Inc., and Ben-Stone Holding Corp., upon their default in appearing or answering, and granted the cross motion of those defendants for leave to serve a late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion and granting the respondents’ cross motion (see, St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr. v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 282 AD2d 593; Trent v Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Ctr., 277 AD2d 444). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 401, 734 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-sawmill-woodworking-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack