Damore v. Helmsley Palace, Inc.

157 A.D.2d 518, 549 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 303
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 16, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered February 22, 1989, which dismissed the complaint and dismissed the third- and fourth-party complaints as moot, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where this personal injury action had been pending since 1982 and plaintiffs had relocated without advising their attorney of their whereabouts, it was not an abuse of the IAS [519]*519court’s discretion under 22 NYCRR 202.27 (2) to dismiss the complaints where it appears that plaintiffs’ attorneys were unable at numerous court appearances, to comply with discovery requests or otherwise prosecute their action because of their inability, despite diligent efforts, to locate or communicate with their clients. Nor was it error, under the circumstances, for the court not to entertain counsel’s proposed order to show cause to withdraw and for a 60-day stay of these actions. (See, Shakerley v St. Peter’s Hosp., 91 AD2d 759.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Damore v. Helmsley Palace, Inc., 157 A.D.2d 518, 549 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

157 A.D.2d 518 (Damore v. Helmsley Palace, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wieland v. Moss
151 Misc. 2d 468 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)