Bongiorno Construction Co. v. Ace Test Boring, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bongiorno Construction Co. v. Ace Test Boring, Inc.

25 A.D.2d 680, 269 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 680 (Bongiorno Construction Co. v. Ace Test Boring, 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

Bongiorno Construction Co. v. Ace Test Boring, Inc., 25 A.D.2d 680, 269 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence aetion by a home builder to recover damages resulting from an allegedly incorrect boring report, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 21, 1965, which denied its motion to vacate the dismissal of the aetion because of plaintiff’s failure to appear for trial and to restore the aetion to the Trial Term Calendar. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted, on condition that plaintiff pay defendants $100 plus defendants’ necessary disbursements on the appeal. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this ease, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to determine the motion unconditionally against plaintiff.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence aetion by a home builder to recover damages resulting from an allegedly incorrect boring report, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 21, 1965, which denied its motion to vacate the dismissal of the aetion because of plaintiff’s failure to appear for trial and to restore the aetion to the Trial Term Calendar. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted, on condition that plaintiff pay defendants $100 plus defendants’ necessary disbursements on the appeal. In our opinion, under the circumstances of this ease, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to determine the motion unconditionally against plaintiff.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 680, 269 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bongiorno-construction-co-v-ace-test-boring-inc-nyappdiv-1966.