59-304 Realty Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

59-304 Realty Co. v. State

41 A.D.2d 1009, 344 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in 59-304 Realty Co. v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 48 A.D.2d 974 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 31, 1973·No. Claim No. 53682·Published

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered on [1010] March 22,1972, which denied a motion to restore the claim to the calendar of the Court of Claims. Appellant’s claim was dismissed, pursuant to the provisions of rule 7 of the Court of Claims (22 NYCRR 1200.8), upon the failure of its attorney to appear or he represented at a calendar call. In order to grant a dismissal under the provisions of this rule it must affirmatively appear that the State is ready to proceed to trial. The record does not support such a finding and the motion to dismiss should not have been granted. Accordingly, the motion to restore the claim to the calendar, which we construe as a motion to vacate the order of dismissal, should have been granted. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and claim restored to calendar for trial. Staley, Jr., J. P., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered on [1010] March 22,1972, which denied a motion to restore the claim to the calendar of the Court of Claims. Appellant’s claim was dismissed, pursuant to the provisions of rule 7 of the Court of Claims (22 NYCRR 1200.8), upon the failure of its attorney to appear or he represented at a calendar call. In order to grant a dismissal under the provisions of this rule it must affirmatively appear that the State is ready to proceed to trial. The record does not support such a finding and the motion to dismiss should not have been granted. Accordingly, the motion to restore the claim to the calendar, which we construe as a motion to vacate the order of dismissal, should have been granted. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and claim restored to calendar for trial. Staley, Jr., J. P., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

59-304 Realty Co. v. State, 41 A.D.2d 1009, 344 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

41 A.D.2d 1009 (59-304 Realty Co. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.