Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealmotionobjectionrespondent
motionrespondent

Related Cases

Leszinske v. Poole, 110 N.M. 663, 798 P.2d 1049, 1990 -NMCA- 088
View Case »
Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U.S. 412, 38 S.Ct. 147, 62 L.Ed. 368
View Case »
Pelle v. Pelle, 229 Md. 160, 182 A.2d 37
View Case »
Hewett v. Zegarzewski, 90 N.C.App. 443, 368 S.E.2d 877
View Case »
Leo Walton v. Arabian American Oil Company., 352 U.S. 872, 77 S.Ct. 97, 1 L.Ed.2d 77
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, etc., respondent, v. Dawin Martinez, etc., et al., defendants,, nan

Facts

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Queens County regarding a motion by the respondent to extend the time to serve and file a brief. The motion was supported by papers filed by the respondent, while no opposition was presented. The court considered the motion and decided to grant it.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted.

Issue

Whether the respondent's motion to extend the time to serve and file a brief should be granted.

Whether the respondent's motion to extend the time to serve and file a brief should be granted.

Rule

The court has the discretion to grant extensions for filing briefs when supported by appropriate motions and documentation, especially in the absence of opposition.

The court has the discretion to grant extensions for filing briefs when supported by appropriate motions and documentation, especially in the absence of opposition.

Analysis

In this case, the respondent submitted a motion to extend the time for filing a brief, and since there were no opposing papers filed, the court found it reasonable to grant the extension. The lack of opposition indicated that there were no objections to the request, allowing the court to exercise its discretion favorably.

The court considered the motion and decided to grant it.

Conclusion

The court granted the respondent's motion for an extension of time to serve and file a brief.

ORDERED that the motion is granted.

Who won?

The respondent prevailed in this motion as the court granted their request for an extension. The absence of opposition played a significant role in the court's decision, demonstrating that the respondent's request was unchallenged and thus warranted approval.

ORDERED that the motion is granted, and on or before July 26, 2021, the respondent shall serve and file the respondent's brief.

You must be