Barrett v. Littles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrett v. Littles

260 A.D.2d 418, 686 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3826

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

DecidedApril 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 418 (Barrett v. Littles) 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

Barrett v. Littles, 260 A.D.2d 418, 686 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the sole owner of two parcels of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated January 26, 1998, which denied his motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute (see, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 504). The plaintiff had a justifiable excuse for his failure to file a note of issue due to the neglect of his previous attorneys (see, Carte v Segall, 134 AD2d 397).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the sole owner of two parcels of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated January 26, 1998, which denied his motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute (see, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 504). The plaintiff had a justifiable excuse for his failure to file a note of issue due to the neglect of his previous attorneys (see, Carte v Segall, 134 AD2d 397).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 418, 686 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-littles-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack