Chicollo v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chicollo v. New York City Housing Authority

31 A.D.2d 546, 295 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2827

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 546 (Chicollo v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Chicollo v. New York City Housing Authority, 31 A.D.2d 546, 295 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries which was automatically dismissed pursuant to statute and the rules of this court (CPLR 3404; Appellate Division Rules, Second Dept., part 7, rule VIII) for neglect to prosecute, defendant S. S. Silberblatt, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Hassau County, dated June 20, 1968, which granted plaintiff’s motion to open his default, vacate the dismissal and restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied. In support of plaintiff’s motion to be relieved of his default, caused by his attorneys’ failure to serve and file a proper statement of readiness, plaintiff’s attorneys alleged that their failure was caused by the neglect of a stenographer employed by them. Such an excuse is insufficient (Tepperman v. Peri, 29 A D 2d 893; Renne V. Roven, 29 A D 2d 866). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin 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 which was automatically dismissed pursuant to statute and the rules of this court (CPLR 3404; Appellate Division Rules, Second Dept., part 7, rule VIII) for neglect to prosecute, defendant S. S. Silberblatt, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Hassau County, dated June 20, 1968, which granted plaintiff’s motion to open his default, vacate the dismissal and restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied. In support of plaintiff’s motion to be relieved of his default, caused by his attorneys’ failure to serve and file a proper statement of readiness, plaintiff’s attorneys alleged that their failure was caused by the neglect of a stenographer employed by them. Such an excuse is insufficient (Tepperman v. Peri, 29 A D 2d 893; Renne V. Roven, 29 A D 2d 866). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 546, 295 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicollo-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1968.