From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curto v. Zittel's Dairy Farm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 2005
23 A.D.3d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

CA 05-00311.

November 10, 2005.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), dated January 3, 2005. The order, inter alia, granted the motions of defendants Zittel's Dairy Farm, John Zittel, Sandra Zittel and Thomas Dexter seeking leave to serve an amended answer and to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness.

PATRICIA CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.

BERKOWITZ PACE, ORCHARD PARK (PETER P. VASILION OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS ZITTEL'S DAIRY FARM, JOHN ZITTEL, SANDY ZITTEL AND THOMAS DEXTER.

ATTEA ATTEA, NORTH BOSTON (BRIAN F. ATTEA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT JEFFREY GASPER.

Present: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Pine, JJ.


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

Memorandum: We conclude in appeal No. 1 that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion of Zittel's Dairy Farm, John Zittel, Sandy Zittel and Thomas Dexter (defendants) seeking leave to serve an amended answer based upon their inadvertent failure to deny plaintiff's allegations that Thomas Dexter and defendant Jeffrey Gasper are the alter egos of Zittel's Dairy Farm, John Zittel and Sandy Zittel ( see Sidor v. Zuhoski, 257 AD2d 564, 565). We further conclude in appeal No. 1 that the court properly granted defendants' motion to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness. Defendants timely sought that relief within 20 days after service of the note of issue and certificate of readiness and provided an affirmation showing that discovery was incomplete ( see Aviles v. 938 SCY Ltd., 283 AD2d 935, 936).

We conclude in appeal No. 2 that the court properly denied that part of plaintiff's motion seeking a stay of a prior order denying in part plaintiff's prior motion for partial summary judgment ( see Peerce v. Peerce, 97 AD2d 718, 719). Finally, we further conclude in appeal No. 2 that the court properly denied that part of plaintiff's motion seeking a temporary restraining order ( see generally CPLR 6301).


Summaries of

Curto v. Zittel's Dairy Farm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 2005
23 A.D.3d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Curto v. Zittel's Dairy Farm

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA CURTO, Appellant, v. ZITTEL'S DAIRY FARM et al., Respondents…

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

Date published: Nov 10, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8430
803 N.Y.S.2d 463

Citing Cases

Ins. Co. of State v. Abcon Assosciates, Inc.

The plaintiff has not materially disputed the defendants' assertion — and the record in any event support —…

Curto v. Zittel's Dairy Farm

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