Coban v. Wil-Sade Realties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coban v. Wil-Sade Realties, Inc.

19 A.D.2d 605, 241 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3580

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

DecidedJune 18, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 605 (Coban v. Wil-Sade Realties, 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

Coban v. Wil-Sade Realties, Inc., 19 A.D.2d 605, 241 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on January 8, 1963, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute “unless plaintiff serves and files a note of issue for the March, 1963 term”, unanimously modified -on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint unconditionally, -and las so modified affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant; and judgment directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs. Plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonably substantial excuse for the 32 months of delay in the prosecution of this action. (See Boon V. Blumenihal, 18 A D 2d 905, 906; Hutnik v. Brodsky, 17 A D 2d 808; Cassieri v. Houston Motors Auto Leasing, 16 A D 2d 632; Krell v. Pelham Syndicate, 14 A D 2d 845.) Failure of defendant to show that it was prejudiced by the delay is immaterial. (See Garcia v. Sentry-H orden Oil é Heating Go., 18 A D 2d 789.) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on January 8, 1963, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute “unless plaintiff serves and files a note of issue for the March, 1963 term”, unanimously modified -on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint unconditionally, -and las so modified affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant; and judgment directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs. Plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonably substantial excuse for the 32 months of delay in the prosecution of this action. (See Boon V. Blumenihal, 18 A D 2d 905, 906; Hutnik v. Brodsky, 17 A D 2d 808; Cassieri v. Houston Motors Auto Leasing, 16 A D 2d 632; Krell v. Pelham Syndicate, 14 A D 2d 845.) Failure of defendant to show that it was prejudiced by the delay is immaterial. (See Garcia v. Sentry-H orden Oil é Heating Go., 18 A D 2d 789.) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 605, 241 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coban-v-wil-sade-realties-inc-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack