Donnelly v. Pepicelli

90 A.D.2d 955, 456 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19231
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 1982·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Order reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint unless plaintiff served a complaint within 20 days of its order. In making the order conditional, it abused its discretion (see Saraceno v Piscopo, 16 AD2d 735). Plaintiff’s moving papers contain no competent evidence of merit to the action and his excuse, that discovery was necessary to draft a complaint, is no more than a law office failure under the circumstances presented (see Cohen v First Nat. City Bank, 75 AD2d 837, affd 52 NY2d 863; Caton v Schenectady Gazette, 82 AD2d 949; and cf. Niesluchowski v Clute Motor Co., 85 AD2d 47). All concur, except Callahan, J., who dissents and votes to affirm, in the following memorandum.

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

Donnelly v. Pepicelli, 90 A.D.2d 955, 456 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

90 A.D.2d 955 (Donnelly v. Pepicelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. Gumer
94 A.D.2d 956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)