Ciarletto v. Worden Sand & Gravel Co.

New York Supreme Court

Ciarletto v. Worden Sand & Gravel Co.

16 Misc. 2d 620, 188 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3962

DecidedApril 8, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Misc. 2d 620 (Ciarletto v. Worden Sand & Gravel Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ciarletto v. Worden Sand & Gravel Co., 16 Misc. 2d 620, 188 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3962 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Arthur D. Brennan, J.

The plaintiff’s cross motion to restore this action to the Trial Term Calendar is defective in at least two respects: (1) It fails to state the exact or approximate date when the plaintiff first learned of the alleged unauthorized settlement agreed to by his prior attorneys nor does it [621]*621state what steps, if any, were thereafter taken with respect to the prosecution of this action; and (2) It fails to set forth a factual showing that the cause of action asserted in the complaint was and is meritorious. (See Walsh v. Ben Riley’s Arrowhead Inn, 2 A D 2d 714.) In addition it should also appear that by stipulation or order the plaintiff’s present attorney has been properly substituted for the former attorneys for the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the cross motion is denied but with leave to renew the same upon proper papers provided said renewal is made returnable by not later than April 29, 1959. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, is adjourned to the return date of said renewed cross motion, if such be made, but if the same be not made, then to April 29, 1959.

Settle order on notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arthur D. Brennan, J.

The plaintiff’s cross motion to restore this action to the Trial Term Calendar is defective in at least two respects: (1) It fails to state the exact or approximate date when the plaintiff first learned of the alleged unauthorized settlement agreed to by his prior attorneys nor does it [621]*621state what steps, if any, were thereafter taken with respect to the prosecution of this action; and (2) It fails to set forth a factual showing that the cause of action asserted in the complaint was and is meritorious. (See Walsh v. Ben Riley’s Arrowhead Inn, 2 A D 2d 714.) In addition it should also appear that by stipulation or order the plaintiff’s present attorney has been properly substituted for the former attorneys for the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the cross motion is denied but with leave to renew the same upon proper papers provided said renewal is made returnable by not later than April 29, 1959. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, is adjourned to the return date of said renewed cross motion, if such be made, but if the same be not made, then to April 29, 1959.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Misc. 2d 620, 188 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciarletto-v-worden-sand-gravel-co-nysupct-1959.