Corr v. Thacker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corr v. Thacker

33 A.D.3d 566, 824 N.Y.S.2d 15

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 566 (Corr v. Thacker) 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

Corr v. Thacker, 33 A.D.3d 566, 824 N.Y.S.2d 15 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered December 22, 2004, which denied [567]*567plaintiffs’ motion for permission to file a note of issue and restore the matter to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs offered no reasonable excuse for their delay in seeking to restore the instant matter to the trial calendar (see Almanzar v Rye Ridge Realty Co., 249 AD2d 128 [1998]). Their assertions of “law office failure” are unavailing since they do not satisfactorily account for their failure to take advantage of the numerous opportunities they were given by the court over a period of nearly 10 years to restore the matter.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered December 22, 2004, which denied [567]*567plaintiffs’ motion for permission to file a note of issue and restore the matter to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs offered no reasonable excuse for their delay in seeking to restore the instant matter to the trial calendar (see Almanzar v Rye Ridge Realty Co., 249 AD2d 128 [1998]). Their assertions of “law office failure” are unavailing since they do not satisfactorily account for their failure to take advantage of the numerous opportunities they were given by the court over a period of nearly 10 years to restore the matter.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 566, 824 N.Y.S.2d 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corr-v-thacker-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack