Casamassina v. Sutton Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casamassina v. Sutton Associates, Inc.

54 A.D.2d 682, 387 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14224

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 682 (Casamassina v. Sutton Associates, 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

Casamassina v. Sutton Associates, Inc., 54 A.D.2d 682, 387 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., which was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 8, 1976, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and restore the action to the Trial Calendar and (2) as limited by its brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated March 8, 1976, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated January 8, 1976 dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order dated March 8, 1976 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. It was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. In our opinion, plaintiffs failed to make the requisite showing of facts sufficient to excuse their delay in prosecution and to establish a meritorious cause of action (see Goldberg v Soifer, 30 AD2d 533). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Rabin and Hawkins, 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, etc., which was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 8, 1976, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and restore the action to the Trial Calendar and (2) as limited by its brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated March 8, 1976, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated January 8, 1976 dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order dated March 8, 1976 reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. It was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. In our opinion, plaintiffs failed to make the requisite showing of facts sufficient to excuse their delay in prosecution and to establish a meritorious cause of action (see Goldberg v Soifer, 30 AD2d 533). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 682, 387 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casamassina-v-sutton-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack