Bandler v. Arthur Mayer Real Estate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bandler v. Arthur Mayer Real Estate

31 A.D.2d 897, 297 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 897 (Bandler v. Arthur Mayer Real Estate) 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

Bandler v. Arthur Mayer Real Estate, 31 A.D.2d 897, 297 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders entered May 27, 1968, denying motion to dismiss for failure to make timely service of the complaint and granting- cross motion to vacate default reversed on the law, the facts and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted and cross motion denied. Defendant appeared in the action and demanded service of a complaint on July 1, 1965. Ho complaint was served, and on April 17, 1968, this motion was made. The excuses offered, illness of plaintiffs’ counsel and the death of his wife, all took place substantially prior to the initiation of the action. The protracted delay is unexplained 'and the action must be deemed to have been abandoned (Colson v. Shapiro, 9 A D 2d 612; Fischetti v. 242 East 19th St. Corp., 4 A D 2d 867; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 29). Concur— Capozzoli, J. P., MeGivem, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.; Rabin, J., deceased.

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

Orders entered May 27, 1968, denying motion to dismiss for failure to make timely service of the complaint and granting- cross motion to vacate default reversed on the law, the facts and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted and cross motion denied. Defendant appeared in the action and demanded service of a complaint on July 1, 1965. Ho complaint was served, and on April 17, 1968, this motion was made. The excuses offered, illness of plaintiffs’ counsel and the death of his wife, all took place substantially prior to the initiation of the action. The protracted delay is unexplained 'and the action must be deemed to have been abandoned (Colson v. Shapiro, 9 A D 2d 612; Fischetti v. 242 East 19th St. Corp., 4 A D 2d 867; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 29). Concur— Capozzoli, J. P., MeGivem, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.; Rabin, J., deceased.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 897, 297 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bandler-v-arthur-mayer-real-estate-nyappdiv-1969.