Khanna v. PREMIUM FOOD AND SPORTS ENTERPRISE, INC.
| Decision Date | 16 January 2001 |
| Citation | 720 N.Y.S.2d 349,279 A.D.2d 508 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | NEEKSON KHANNA, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>PREMIUM FOOD AND SPORTS ENTERPRISE, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter judgment against the defendant Premium Food and Sports Enterprise, Inc. (hereinafter Premium), upon its default, and in extending that defendant's time to serve an answer (see, Roche Mgt. v Burns, 275 AD2d 404; Bungay v Joy Power Prods., 243 AD2d 527). The appellant was not prejudiced by Premium's unintentional and short delay (see, Trent v Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Ctr., 277 AD2d 444; Stone v County of Nassau, 272 AD2d 392; Chetrick v Cohen, 266 AD2d 254).
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini
...889, 890, 909 N.Y.S.2d 403;Nasca v. Town of Brookhaven, 4 A.D.3d 462, 462, 771 N.Y.S.2d 686;Khanna v. Premium Food & Sports Enter., 279 A.D.2d 508, 509, 720 N.Y.S.2d 349). “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” ( Mas......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Izmirligil
...1119, 1120, 900 N.Y.S.2d 907; Nasca v. Town of Brookhaven, 4 A.D.3d 462, 462, 771 N.Y.S.2d 686; Khanna v. Premium Food & Sports Enter., 279 A.D.2d 508, 509, 720 N.Y.S.2d 349). “ ‘The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court’......
-
Equicredit Corp. of Am. v. Campbell
...Lema, 305 A.D.2d 632, 633, 760 N.Y.S.2d 197; see Nasca v. Town of Brookhaven, 4 A.D.3d 462, 771 N.Y.S.2d 686;Khanna v. Premium Food & Sports Enter., 279 A.D.2d 508, 720 N.Y.S.2d 349). The defendant established that the alleged service upon it was defective and that the defective service con......
-
Goldman v. City of Ny
...his answer was brief and not willful, and there is no evidence that the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the delay (see, Khanna v Premium Food & Sports Enter., 279 A.D.2d 508; Trent v Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Ctr., 277 A.D.2d 444). Furthermore, the proposed verified answer which Anchundi......
Request a trial to view additional results