Clements v. Mantegna
This text of 64 A.D.2d 636 (Clements v. Mantegna) 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.
Opinion
—Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: It appears that plaintiff was most diligent in seeking to expedite prosecution of his action. Any delay in serving bills of particulars and the default resulting therefrom was not due in any respect to plaintiff’s conduct. In view of the plaintiff’s apparent lack of intent deliberately to default or abandon the action and the lack of undue delay and resulting prejudice to the opposing parties we find no abuse of discretion on the part of Special Term to warrant a reversal of its order (see Kahn v Stamp, 52 AD2d 748). (Appeals from order of Monroe Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present— Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Witmer, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
64 A.D.2d 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clements-v-mantegna-nyappdiv-1978.