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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 31, 1973

DocketClaim No. 53682

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 1009 (59-304 Realty Co. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, entered on [1010]*1010March 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]*1010March 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 1009, 344 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/59-304-realty-co-v-state-nyappdiv-1973.