Bosco v. De Pitt's Mountain Lodge Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bosco v. De Pitt's Mountain Lodge Inc.

28 A.D.2d 717, 281 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3742

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

DecidedJune 26, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.2d 717 (Bosco v. De Pitt's Mountain Lodge 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

Bosco v. De Pitt's Mountain Lodge Inc., 28 A.D.2d 717, 281 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: I think there was a sufficient showing of merit in plaintiff’s cause of action and excusable inadvertence on her attorney’s part, caused to some extent by the general calendar delay in Suffolk County, and probably also contributed to by the refusal of the named defendants to identify a third possible defendant, who they claim is primarily liable. The presumption of abandonment under CPLR 3404 has here been sufficiently rebutted (Marco v. Sachs, 10 N Y 2d 542).

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

Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: I think there was a sufficient showing of merit in plaintiff’s cause of action and excusable inadvertence on her attorney’s part, caused to some extent by the general calendar delay in Suffolk County, and probably also contributed to by the refusal of the named defendants to identify a third possible defendant, who they claim is primarily liable. The presumption of abandonment under CPLR 3404 has here been sufficiently rebutted (Marco v. Sachs, 10 N Y 2d 542).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.2d 717, 281 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bosco-v-de-pitts-mountain-lodge-inc-nyappdiv-1967.