Budesheim v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Budesheim v. City of New York

42 A.D.2d 905, 347 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 905 (Budesheim 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

Budesheim v. City of New York, 42 A.D.2d 905, 347 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 18, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to accept a complaint and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint. Order reversed, in the exercise of discretion, without costs; plaintiff’s motion denied; and defendant’s cross motion granted. To justify the 29-month delay in serving the complaint, plaintiff’s attorney asserts that his secretary inadvertently placed the case file with those marked “ closed ”. In our opinion, this excuse amounts to a “law-office failure”, which, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss an action for failure to timely serve a complaint or to constitute a cognizable explanation to excuse the delay (Eromberg v. 261 Broadway Estates, 38 A D 2d 752). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, 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 wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 18, 1972, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to accept a complaint and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint. Order reversed, in the exercise of discretion, without costs; plaintiff’s motion denied; and defendant’s cross motion granted. To justify the 29-month delay in serving the complaint, plaintiff’s attorney asserts that his secretary inadvertently placed the case file with those marked “ closed ”. In our opinion, this excuse amounts to a “law-office failure”, which, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss an action for failure to timely serve a complaint or to constitute a cognizable explanation to excuse the delay (Eromberg v. 261 Broadway Estates, 38 A D 2d 752). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 905, 347 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/budesheim-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1973.