Bistricer v. J. & M. Knitting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bistricer v. J. & M. Knitting Co.

108 A.D.2d 711, 484 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43049

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.2d 711 (Bistricer v. J. & M. Knitting Co.) 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

Bistricer v. J. & M. Knitting Co., 108 A.D.2d 711, 484 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff Bistricer appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Pantano, J.), dated February 27,1984, which denied his motion to strike the action from the Trial Calendar and (2) from an order of the same court, dated June 6, 1984, which denied his motion to renew.

Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of the case, which was commenced over seven years ago, appellant had ample time to complete discovery and, therefore, Special Term’s refusal to strike the action from the Trial Calendar was not an abuse of discretion (see, Hutchins v Wand, 82 AD2d 928; Polsinelli v Hanover Ins. Co., 62 AD2d 376). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff Bistricer appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Pantano, J.), dated February 27,1984, which denied his motion to strike the action from the Trial Calendar and (2) from an order of the same court, dated June 6, 1984, which denied his motion to renew.

Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of the case, which was commenced over seven years ago, appellant had ample time to complete discovery and, therefore, Special Term’s refusal to strike the action from the Trial Calendar was not an abuse of discretion (see, Hutchins v Wand, 82 AD2d 928; Polsinelli v Hanover Ins. Co., 62 AD2d 376). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 711, 484 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bistricer-v-j-m-knitting-co-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack