Cooperman v. Princeton Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooperman v. Princeton Realty Corp.

3 A.D.2d 850, 161 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5856

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

DecidedApril 15, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 850 (Cooperman v. Princeton Realty Corp.) 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

Cooperman v. Princeton Realty Corp., 3 A.D.2d 850, 161 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

-In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from so much of an order as conditionally dismissed the complaint for lack of prosecution, on .appellant’s motion, unless respondent noticed the case for trial for the September, 1956 Term. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “ dismissed ”. As so modified, order insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. Respondent has failed to offer any reasonable explanation or excuse for her failure to have brought the action to trial for over four years after joinder of issue and has failed to present any showing of merit. The motion, therefore, should have been granted unconditionally. (Tuttle V. Dubuque Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 155 App. Div. 802; Rochefort V. Stillman [Appeal No. 2], 246 App. Div. 559; Messing v. City of New York, 285 App. Div. 977; Mancino v. City of New York, 1 A D 2d 830.) Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

-In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from so much of an order as conditionally dismissed the complaint for lack of prosecution, on .appellant’s motion, unless respondent noticed the case for trial for the September, 1956 Term. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “ dismissed ”. As so modified, order insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. Respondent has failed to offer any reasonable explanation or excuse for her failure to have brought the action to trial for over four years after joinder of issue and has failed to present any showing of merit. The motion, therefore, should have been granted unconditionally. (Tuttle V. Dubuque Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 155 App. Div. 802; Rochefort V. Stillman [Appeal No. 2], 246 App. Div. 559; Messing v. City of New York, 285 App. Div. 977; Mancino v. City of New York, 1 A D 2d 830.) Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 850, 161 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooperman-v-princeton-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack