Crocker v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crocker v. City of New York

20 A.D.2d 913, 249 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3999

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

DecidedApril 20, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 913 (Crocker 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

Crocker v. City of New York, 20 A.D.2d 913, 249 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action, the defendant city appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 15, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel it to accept service of a proposed complaint which the plaintiff had failed to serve within the time prescribed. Order reversed, without costs; and motion denied. It appears that the defendant city appeared in the action in December, 1960. The instant motion was not made until February 11, 1963. In our opinion, the record fails to establish any satisfactory excuse for the inordinate delay by the plaintiff in the prosecution of the action; nor is there a satisfactory showing of merit in the cause of action asserted by him (cf. Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action, the defendant city appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 15, 1963, which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel it to accept service of a proposed complaint which the plaintiff had failed to serve within the time prescribed. Order reversed, without costs; and motion denied. It appears that the defendant city appeared in the action in December, 1960. The instant motion was not made until February 11, 1963. In our opinion, the record fails to establish any satisfactory excuse for the inordinate delay by the plaintiff in the prosecution of the action; nor is there a satisfactory showing of merit in the cause of action asserted by him (cf. Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 913, 249 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crocker-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1964.