As it is clear from the record that defendants intended to contest this matter, and in fact submitted two answers, albeit with technical defects, prior to plaintiff filing the amended complaint, and in light of the lack of prejudice caused to plaintiff by defendants' brief delay in answering the amended complaint, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the cross motion to compel plaintiff to accept service of the late answer (see Artcorp Inc. v Citirich...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
