Briskin v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Briskin v. Hertz Corp.

20 A.D.2d 712, 247 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4441

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 712 (Briskin v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Briskin v. Hertz Corp., 20 A.D.2d 712, 247 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 27, 1963, conditionally denying its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, pursuant to section 181 of the former Civil Practice Act. Order reversed, without cost; motion granted and complaint dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, defendant’s right to dismissal was not waived by proceeding with the examinations before trial at a time when a decision on its motion to dismiss was pending. In view of the history of this action, plaintiff has failed to make the required showing of a reasonable excuse or justification for the delay in its prosecution (Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 27, 1963, conditionally denying its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, pursuant to section 181 of the former Civil Practice Act. Order reversed, without cost; motion granted and complaint dismissed, without costs. In our opinion, defendant’s right to dismissal was not waived by proceeding with the examinations before trial at a time when a decision on its motion to dismiss was pending. In view of the history of this action, plaintiff has failed to make the required showing of a reasonable excuse or justification for the delay in its prosecution (Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 712, 247 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briskin-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1964.