Bradley v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bradley v. City of New York

24 A.D.2d 490, 261 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3878

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

DecidedJune 21, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 490 (Bradley v. City of New York) 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

Bradley v. City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 490, 261 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury sustained as a result of falling on a defective sidewalk, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 11, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion to extend her time to serve her complaint, directed defendant to accept service thereof, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to statute (CPLR 3012, subd. [b], 32.16). Order reversed, without costs; plaintiff’s motion denied; defendant’s cross motion to dismiss, granted; and action dismissed, without costs. The only reason offered by plaintiff for her failure to serve the complaint for more than two and one-half years following the service of the summons was that her attorney had misplaced the file. Such excuse is inadequate to excuse the delay (Greenwald v. Zyvith, 23 A D 2d 201; Burke v. City of New York, 18 A D 2d 898, and cases cited therein). Moreover, we are of the opinion that the failure [491]*491to serve a complaint for so long a period of time without a justifiable excuse is tantamount to an abandonment of the action. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury sustained as a result of falling on a defective sidewalk, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 11, 1964, which granted plaintiff’s motion to extend her time to serve her complaint, directed defendant to accept service thereof, and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to statute (CPLR 3012, subd. [b], 32.16). Order reversed, without costs; plaintiff’s motion denied; defendant’s cross motion to dismiss, granted; and action dismissed, without costs. The only reason offered by plaintiff for her failure to serve the complaint for more than two and one-half years following the service of the summons was that her attorney had misplaced the file. Such excuse is inadequate to excuse the delay (Greenwald v. Zyvith, 23 A D 2d 201; Burke v. City of New York, 18 A D 2d 898, and cases cited therein). Moreover, we are of the opinion that the failure [491]*491to serve a complaint for so long a period of time without a justifiable excuse is tantamount to an abandonment of the action. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 490, 261 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1965.