From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kramer v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 9, 1994
204 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 9, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Given the short delay and the lack of any prejudice, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for the plaintiff's failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand (see, Reuter v. Schroeder, 195 A.D.2d 543; Shopsin v. Siben Siben, 189 A.D.2d 811). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kramer v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 9, 1994
204 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Kramer v. Rosenthal

Case Details

Full title:LANCE C. KRAMER, Respondent, v. JEROME ROSENTHAL, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: May 9, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
614 N.Y.S.2d 185

Citing Cases

Pristavec v. Galligan

Contrary to the appellants 'contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding…

Klosterman v. Federal Express Company

Given the short delay and the lack of any prejudice, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion…