Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Khanna v. Premium Food & Sports Enterprise, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 16, 2001

279 A.D.2d 508; 720 N.Y.S.2d 349; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 337

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Cervini (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Bank of New York Mellon v. Izmirligil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Equicredit Corp. of America v. Campbell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Rottenberg v. Preferred Property Management, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Nunez v. Bertram (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Bunch v. Dollar Budget, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Russo v. U-Store Self Storage, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Galante v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Kelly v. National Wholesale Liquidators, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Gazes v. Hamilton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Goldman v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated May 1, 2000, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to enter judgment against the defendant Premium Food and Sports Enterprise, Inc., upon its default in appearing and granted the cross motion of the defendant Premium Food and Sports Enterprise, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) for an extension of time to serve an answer.

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

*509The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs 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). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.