Auerbach v. E. R. E., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Auerbach v. E. R. E., Inc.

27 A.D.2d 921, 279 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4397

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

DecidedApril 20, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 921 (Auerbach v. E. R. E., 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

Auerbach v. E. R. E., Inc., 27 A.D.2d 921, 279 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on February 3, 1966, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss [922]*922for delay and unreasonable neglect to prosecute the action unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants and motion granted. The action was begun in June, 1963 on a claim that accrued in December, 1957. Issue was joined in September, 1963. No further steps were taken until December, 1965. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is ¡based on the absence of the 45-day demand provided for in CPLR 3216. This reliance is misplaced where the application is made on grounds of general delay (Thomas v. Melbert Foods, 19 N Y 2d 216). Here, that delay was inordinate. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, McNally and MeGivern, JJ.

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

Order entered on February 3, 1966, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss [922]*922for delay and unreasonable neglect to prosecute the action unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants and motion granted. The action was begun in June, 1963 on a claim that accrued in December, 1957. Issue was joined in September, 1963. No further steps were taken until December, 1965. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is ¡based on the absence of the 45-day demand provided for in CPLR 3216. This reliance is misplaced where the application is made on grounds of general delay (Thomas v. Melbert Foods, 19 N Y 2d 216). Here, that delay was inordinate. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, McNally and MeGivern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 921, 279 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auerbach-v-e-r-e-inc-nyappdiv-1967.