Ackerman v. Perchikoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ackerman v. Perchikoff

30 A.D.2d 672, 291 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791

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

DecidedJune 10, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 672 (Ackerman v. Perchikoff) 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

Ackerman v. Perchikoff, 30 A.D.2d 672, 291 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 20, 1966, which denied her motion (a) to vacate the automatic dismissal of the action (CPLR 3404) and (b) to restore the action to the Trial Calendar and (2) from so much of an order of said court dated February 3, 1967 and made on reargument, as adhered to the original decision. Appeal from the order dated October 20, 1966 dismissed, without costs. That order was superseded by the order on reargument. Order dated February 3,1967 reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements, and original motion granted. In our opinion, the record indicates a meritorious cause of action, no intention to abandon the action on the part of plaintiff and no merit to defendant’s claim of prejudice (Marco v. Sachs, 10 N Y 2d 542; Tactuk v. Freiberg, 24 A D 2d 503; Boyle v. Krebs & Schulz Motors, 18 A D 2d 1010; Blau v. Levine, 28 A D 2d 1137). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by plaintiff (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 20, 1966, which denied her motion (a) to vacate the automatic dismissal of the action (CPLR 3404) and (b) to restore the action to the Trial Calendar and (2) from so much of an order of said court dated February 3, 1967 and made on reargument, as adhered to the original decision. Appeal from the order dated October 20, 1966 dismissed, without costs. That order was superseded by the order on reargument. Order dated February 3,1967 reversed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements, and original motion granted. In our opinion, the record indicates a meritorious cause of action, no intention to abandon the action on the part of plaintiff and no merit to defendant’s claim of prejudice (Marco v. Sachs, 10 N Y 2d 542; Tactuk v. Freiberg, 24 A D 2d 503; Boyle v. Krebs & Schulz Motors, 18 A D 2d 1010; Blau v. Levine, 28 A D 2d 1137). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 672, 291 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ackerman-v-perchikoff-nyappdiv-1968.