From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Podgurski v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2000
278 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted November 29, 2000.

December 19, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for trespass, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated December 14, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for an extension of time to answer the complaint.

Mitchell L. Pashkin, Huntington, N.Y., for appellant.

Ackerman, Levine, Cullan Brickman, LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. (James A. Bradley of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was for an extension of time to answer the complaint where the delay was only four days (see, Kaiser v. Delaney, 255 A.D.2d 362; Bungay v. Joy Power Prods., 243 A.D.2d 527; Junior v. City of New York, 85 A.D.2d 683).


Summaries of

Podgurski v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 19, 2000
278 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Podgurski v. County of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL T. PODGURSKI, APPELLANT, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Dec 19, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 631