From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acevedo v. DePena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05837.

Decided April 26, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated May 28, 2003, which denied their motion to extend the time to file a note of issue.

Mallilo Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' second motion to extend the time to file a note of issue, given the delay of more than 2½ years in conducting any further discovery and in properly filing a note of issue, an inadequate excuse for the delay, and prejudice to the defendants ( see Dhaliwal v. Long Boat Taxi, 305 A.D.2d 449; Carota v. Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 272 A.D.2d 428).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Acevedo v. DePena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Acevedo v. DePena

Case Details

Full title:MIRIAM ACEVEDO, ET AL., appellants, v. LUIS DePENA, ET AL., defendants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 26, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 181

Citing Cases

Sanchez v. Serje

90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 on June 24, 2008. Upon receipt of the 90-day demand, the plaintiffs were…

Hermida v. Harris

We reverse. The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' second…