Citation Numbers: 132 A.D.2d 939, 518 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49391
Filed Date: 7/10/1987
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/28/2024
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We conclude that plaintiff’s failure to serve the complaint until nine days after it was due was not law office failure under the circumstances of this case (cf., Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904, 905). Consequently, there being a sufficient indication of merit and no prejudice to defendant, it was not an abuse of discretion for Special Term to deny the motion to dismiss the complaint (see, Donnelly v Pepicelli, 58 NY2d 268; Barasch v Micucci, 49