Arcoleo v. Negenten Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arcoleo v. Negenten Realty, Inc.

15 A.D.2d 774, 224 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11210

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 774 (Arcoleo v. Negenten Realty, 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

Arcoleo v. Negenten Realty, Inc., 15 A.D.2d 774, 224 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Plain tiff-appellant, [775]*775however, in the exercise of discretion, is granted leave to move to vacate such dismissal within 30 days after service of the order entered herein, with notice of entry, upon tender and payment of $250 additional costs, together with payment of the costs and disbursements taxable to date in the action against plaintiff, including this appeal, to be charged to and paid by attorney for plaintiff. The delay is hardly excusable because, despite the complicated tribulations narrated in his affidavit, plaintiff’s attorney had ample opportunity as well as the obligation to attend to his practice. However, because the action is not of very great age and involves such unfortunate circumstances surrounding the accident the alleged merit of the claim, arguably, should not be summarily determined by dismissal. This case, then, affords occasion for a conditional but cautious departure from the firm policy of this court with respect to delays in prosecution, as was done in Keenan v. Waring (12 A D 2d 601). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Plain tiff-appellant, [775]*775however, in the exercise of discretion, is granted leave to move to vacate such dismissal within 30 days after service of the order entered herein, with notice of entry, upon tender and payment of $250 additional costs, together with payment of the costs and disbursements taxable to date in the action against plaintiff, including this appeal, to be charged to and paid by attorney for plaintiff. The delay is hardly excusable because, despite the complicated tribulations narrated in his affidavit, plaintiff’s attorney had ample opportunity as well as the obligation to attend to his practice. However, because the action is not of very great age and involves such unfortunate circumstances surrounding the accident the alleged merit of the claim, arguably, should not be summarily determined by dismissal. This case, then, affords occasion for a conditional but cautious departure from the firm policy of this court with respect to delays in prosecution, as was done in Keenan v. Waring (12 A D 2d 601). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 774, 224 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arcoleo-v-negenten-realty-inc-nyappdiv-1962.