Cordes v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cordes v. Stewart

31 A.D.2d 757, 298 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4740

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 757 (Cordes v. Stewart) 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

Cordes v. Stewart, 31 A.D.2d 757, 298 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, which action was automatically dismissed pursuant to statute and the rules of this court (CPLR 8404; Rules, App. Div., 2nd Dept., part 8 [formerly part 7], rule VIII; 22 NYCRR 675.8) for neglect to prosecute, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 27, 1968, which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and for other relief. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied. In its essential facts this ease does not differ from Renne v. Roven (29 A D 2d 866) and accordingly we believe the Trial Term improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, which action was automatically dismissed pursuant to statute and the rules of this court (CPLR 8404; Rules, App. Div., 2nd Dept., part 8 [formerly part 7], rule VIII; 22 NYCRR 675.8) for neglect to prosecute, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 27, 1968, which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and for other relief. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied. In its essential facts this ease does not differ from Renne v. Roven (29 A D 2d 866) and accordingly we believe the Trial Term improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 757, 298 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordes-v-stewart-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack