Crucilla v. Howe Richardson Scale Co.

80 A.D.2d 575, 435 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10247
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 9, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 575 (Crucilla v. Howe Richardson Scale Co.) 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
Crucilla v. Howe Richardson Scale Co., 80 A.D.2d 575, 435 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Howe Richardson Scale Co., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 17, 1980, as granted plaintiff’s motion for reargument of the denial of his motion to vacate an order dismissing the complaint and, upon reargument, granted the motion to vacate and imposed $250 costs on plaintiff’s attorney. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provisions granting the motion to vacate and imposing costs and substituting therefor a provision adhering to the original determination. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements payable to defendant. Excuses amounting to “law office failure”, as a matter of law, are insufficient to vacate an order dismissing an action for failure to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216 (Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25; cf. Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594). In the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay, it was error for Special Term to permit plaintiff to proceed against defendant solely on the ground that defendant had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the delay (cf. Barasch v Micucci, supra; Verre v Rosas, 47 NY2d 795). Hopkins, J.P., Titone, Rabin and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

LeCesse Bros. Contracting, Inc. v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.
101 A.D.2d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Salch v. Paratore
92 A.D.2d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Johnson v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.
91 A.D.2d 626 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Steiner v. East Ramapo Central School District
88 A.D.2d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Miskiewicz v. Hartley Restaurant Corp.
88 A.D.2d 586 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Scott v. 99th Commercial Street, Inc.
87 A.D.2d 626 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Rojas v. Prudential Grace Lines, Inc.
86 A.D.2d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Gohery v. Spartan Concrete Corp.
85 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Junior v. City of New York
85 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 A.D.2d 575, 435 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crucilla-v-howe-richardson-scale-co-nyappdiv-1981.