Celentano v. Armfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Celentano v. Armfield

48 A.D.2d 874, 372 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10115

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

DecidedJune 16, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 874 (Celentano v. Armfield) 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

Celentano v. Armfield, 48 A.D.2d 874, 372 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Sylvestri Armfield appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated December 17, 1974, as granted the branch of a motion by plaintiff which was to vacate a previous order, made on default, dismissing the action for want of prosecution. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements, and said branch of plaintiff’s motion denied, without prejudice to renewal on proper papers. In support of the [875]*875motion under review, plaintiff was required to show both (1) a meritorious cause of action and (2) a reasonable excuse for the neglect in prosecution and the delay in making the motion (Prokop v City of New York, 9 AD2d 788). Plaintiff’s moving papers were inadequate in both respects. Benjamin, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Latham and Munder, 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, defendant Sylvestri Armfield appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated December 17, 1974, as granted the branch of a motion by plaintiff which was to vacate a previous order, made on default, dismissing the action for want of prosecution. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements, and said branch of plaintiff’s motion denied, without prejudice to renewal on proper papers. In support of the [875]*875motion under review, plaintiff was required to show both (1) a meritorious cause of action and (2) a reasonable excuse for the neglect in prosecution and the delay in making the motion (Prokop v City of New York, 9 AD2d 788). Plaintiff’s moving papers were inadequate in both respects. Benjamin, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Latham and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 874, 372 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/celentano-v-armfield-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack