Briskman v. Kushner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Briskman v. Kushner

33 A.D.2d 1042, 308 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5424

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 1970·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a 'negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, which action was dismissed as abandoned (CPLR 3404), plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 20, 1969, as, after granting renewal of her prior motion for leave to file a statement of readiness nunc pro tunc, denied said prior motion and also her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with one bill of $10 costs jointly against respondents filing separate briefs, and motions for leave to file a statement of readiness and to vacate the dismissal of the action granted. In our opinion, the record sufficiently establishes that plaintiff never intended to abandon the action. Absent demonstrated prejudice to defendants, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion (cf. Marco v. Sachs, 10 N Y 2d 542; Tactuk v. Freiberg, 24 A D 2d 503; Boyle v. Krebs & Schulz Motors, 18 A D 2d 1010; Blau v. Levine, 28 A D 2d 1137; Ackerman v. Perchikoff, 30 A D 2d 672; Sloan v. Glashow, 29 A D 2d 963). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Munder, Martuscello and Benjamin, 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 injuries, which action was dismissed as abandoned (CPLR 3404), plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 20, 1969, as, after granting renewal of her prior motion for leave to file a statement of readiness nunc pro tunc, denied said prior motion and also her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with one bill of $10 costs jointly against respondents filing separate briefs, and motions for leave to file a statement of readiness and to vacate the dismissal of the action granted. In our opinion, the record sufficiently establishes that plaintiff never intended to abandon the action. Absent demonstrated prejudice to defendants, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion (cf. Marco v. Sachs, 10 N Y 2d 542; Tactuk v. Freiberg, 24 A D 2d 503; Boyle v. Krebs & Schulz Motors, 18 A D 2d 1010; Blau v. Levine, 28 A D 2d 1137; Ackerman v. Perchikoff, 30 A D 2d 672; Sloan v. Glashow, 29 A D 2d 963). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Munder, Martuscello and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Briskman v. Kushner, 33 A.D.2d 1042, 308 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

33 A.D.2d 1042 (Briskman v. Kushner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related