Altman v. Embassy Cooperative, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Altman v. Embassy Cooperative, Inc.

41 A.D.2d 767, 341 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4839

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 767 (Altman v. Embassy Cooperative, Inc.) 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

Altman v. Embassy Cooperative, Inc., 41 A.D.2d 767, 341 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

:In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 27, 1972, which (1) denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution and (2) granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to remove the case from said court to the Civil Court of the City of New York. Order reversed, without costs; defendant’s motion granted unconditionally and complaint dismissed; and cross motion of plaintiffs dismissed as academic. Pursuant to CPLR 3216, as amended, defendant duly served upon plaintiffs’ attorney a notice demanding that plaintiffs, within 45 days, file a note of issue. Plaintiffs failed to comply with the demand. In our opinion, the excuses offered by plaintiffs did not justify the delay in prosecuting the action (Arvanitakis v. Realty Equities — 1961 Corp., 26 A D 2d 825; Passalacqua v. County Estates, 24 A D 2d 497). The inadequacy of those excuses, combined with the eonclusory affidavit of merits submitted by the injured plaintiff’s husband, who does not allege any personal knowledge of the facts of the alleged accident, entitled defendant to an unconditional dismissal of the complaint (Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuseello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

:In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 27, 1972, which (1) denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution and (2) granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to remove the case from said court to the Civil Court of the City of New York. Order reversed, without costs; defendant’s motion granted unconditionally and complaint dismissed; and cross motion of plaintiffs dismissed as academic. Pursuant to CPLR 3216, as amended, defendant duly served upon plaintiffs’ attorney a notice demanding that plaintiffs, within 45 days, file a note of issue. Plaintiffs failed to comply with the demand. In our opinion, the excuses offered by plaintiffs did not justify the delay in prosecuting the action (Arvanitakis v. Realty Equities — 1961 Corp., 26 A D 2d 825; Passalacqua v. County Estates, 24 A D 2d 497). The inadequacy of those excuses, combined with the eonclusory affidavit of merits submitted by the injured plaintiff’s husband, who does not allege any personal knowledge of the facts of the alleged accident, entitled defendant to an unconditional dismissal of the complaint (Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuseello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 767, 341 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altman-v-embassy-cooperative-inc-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack