Cotter v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cotter v. City of New York

48 A.D.2d 814, 370 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10016

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

DecidedJune 26, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 814 (Cotter v. City of New York) 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

Cotter v. City of New York, 48 A.D.2d 814, 370 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 25, 1974, denying plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to the calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and said motion granted, without costs or disbursements. Though the instant action is of ancient vintage and had been on the calendar numerous times, counsel’s failure to appear on the date fixed for trial was due to his actual engagement in trial of another case in Supreme Court, Suffolk County. Under such circumstance, the cause should have been "held subject” (22 NYCCR 660.5[e]) and its dismissal for nonappearance was an improvident exercise of [815]*815discretion. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 25, 1974, denying plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to the calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and said motion granted, without costs or disbursements. Though the instant action is of ancient vintage and had been on the calendar numerous times, counsel’s failure to appear on the date fixed for trial was due to his actual engagement in trial of another case in Supreme Court, Suffolk County. Under such circumstance, the cause should have been "held subject” (22 NYCCR 660.5[e]) and its dismissal for nonappearance was an improvident exercise of [815]*815discretion. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Capozzoli and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 814, 370 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotter-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack