Amelivia v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amelivia v. Roth

42 A.D.2d 543, 345 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4137

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

DecidedJune 19, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 543 (Amelivia v. Roth) 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

Amelivia v. Roth, 42 A.D.2d 543, 345 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying a motion to dismiss the complaint on the condition that counsel for the plaintiff pay $100 costs to the defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to dismiss granted unconditionally. The delay here was inordinate and not adequately explained, íhere was not only a failure to comply with the 45-day demand requirement [544]*544of CPLR 3216, but also the action was commenced almost three years after the accident, and there was a 15 months’ delay in the prosecution of the action, as well as a failure to serve a response to the demand for a bill of particulars until a conditional preclusion order. (Sortmo v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25; Durand v. Gaslight Club, 27 A D 2d 835.) Moreover, an adequate affidavit of merits was not supplied. (Keogh v. New York Post Corp., 22 A D 2d 659.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Lane and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying a motion to dismiss the complaint on the condition that counsel for the plaintiff pay $100 costs to the defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to dismiss granted unconditionally. The delay here was inordinate and not adequately explained, íhere was not only a failure to comply with the 45-day demand requirement [544]*544of CPLR 3216, but also the action was commenced almost three years after the accident, and there was a 15 months’ delay in the prosecution of the action, as well as a failure to serve a response to the demand for a bill of particulars until a conditional preclusion order. (Sortmo v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25; Durand v. Gaslight Club, 27 A D 2d 835.) Moreover, an adequate affidavit of merits was not supplied. (Keogh v. New York Post Corp., 22 A D 2d 659.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Lane and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 543, 345 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amelivia-v-roth-nyappdiv-1973.