From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1999
265 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued June 28, 1999

October 18, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.).


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

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants' motion for leave to serve a late answer and denying the plaintiff's cross motion (see, Lichtman v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 237 A.D.2d 373; Kranis, P.C. v. European Am. Bank, 208 A.D.2d 904).

RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1999
265 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Piccirillo v. Scarlino Fuel Oil Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROSE PICCIRILLO, appellant, v. SCARLINO FUEL OIL CO., INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 18, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 699

Citing Cases

Goldman v. City of New York

oebuck Co., 236 A.D.2d 373). Anchundia's delay in serving his answer was brief and not willful, and there is…

Harris v. City of New York

Moreover, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense in this case is adequately established by both…