Cooper v. Schnabolk

283 A.D. 937, 130 N.Y.S.2d 606
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 25, 1954
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 937 (Cooper v. Schnabolk) 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
Cooper v. Schnabolk, 283 A.D. 937, 130 N.Y.S.2d 606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. We think the motion should have been granted.

The complaint, verified in June, 1950, asserts a claim for commissions accruing in June or July, 1944. There was thus a six-year delay in instituting the action.

Issue was joined by service of an answer in August, 1950. No note of issue was filed, however, or other action taken to bring the case to trial until January, 1954, when a recently substituted attorney for the plaintiff served a notice of examination before trial. Defendants then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.

No excuse whatever is given by plaintiff for the long delay in prosecuting the action. No affidavit or showing of merits is contained in the answering papers. The sole opposition to the motion is a perfunctory affidavit of plaintiff’s substituted attorney stating that he had only just been substituted and had been diligent in prosecuting the action since the substitution by serving a notice of examination before trial. Nothing is stated by way of explanation of the nearly ten-year accumulated delay up to that time.

The order appealed from should be reversed and the motion granted.

Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Breitel and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants and the motion granted, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint herein, with costs.

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

Related

Waldman v. Cedar Management Corp.
11 A.D.2d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Ruderman v. Feffer
10 A.D.2d 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Smith v. Doughboy's Auto Sales Corp.
10 A.D.2d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Sigmund v. House of Cutlery, Inc.
7 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Banks v. Hotel Marsielles, Inc.
8 A.D.2d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Charles Barnett Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
7 A.D.2d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Transpacific Steamship Co. v. Marine Office of America
5 A.D.2d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Munroe v. Vaskowitz
6 Misc. 2d 673 (New York County Courts, 1957)
A. R. Hyde & Sons v. Roller Derby Skate Co.
1 A.D.2d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 A.D. 937, 130 N.Y.S.2d 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-schnabolk-nyappdiv-1954.