Ardis v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ardis v. Schwartz

29 A.D.2d 559, 286 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2686

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 559 (Ardis v. Schwartz) 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

Ardis v. Schwartz, 29 A.D.2d 559, 286 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 1, 1965, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to vacate two orders of said court, dated December 9, 1963 and September 9, 1964, respectively, and for other relief granted. The September, 1964 order dismissing the complaint was procured without compliance by defendant with CPLR 321 (subd. [c]), and should have been vacated (Tourmer v. Linden Gen., 26 A D 2d 576; YláhaMs v. Sharf, 283 App. Div. 1087). The delay in prosecuting the action was adequately explained and defendant points to no specific prejudice which would overcome the beneficial policy that controversies should be disposed of on their merits (Benadon v. Antonio, 10 A D 2d 40, 42). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 1, 1965, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to vacate two orders of said court, dated December 9, 1963 and September 9, 1964, respectively, and for other relief granted. The September, 1964 order dismissing the complaint was procured without compliance by defendant with CPLR 321 (subd. [c]), and should have been vacated (Tourmer v. Linden Gen., 26 A D 2d 576; YláhaMs v. Sharf, 283 App. Div. 1087). The delay in prosecuting the action was adequately explained and defendant points to no specific prejudice which would overcome the beneficial policy that controversies should be disposed of on their merits (Benadon v. Antonio, 10 A D 2d 40, 42). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 559, 286 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ardis-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack