Edelstein v. Friedlander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edelstein v. Friedlander

167 A.D.2d 500, 562 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14300

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 500 (Edelstein v. Friedlander) 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

Edelstein v. Friedlander, 167 A.D.2d 500, 562 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for libel, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated December 9, 1988, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute.

[501]*501Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. The extent of delay was minimal, there existed a justifiable excuse for the delay, and a sufficient affidavit of merit was provided. Moreover, the defendants have failed to allege prejudice and there is no evidence that the plaintiffs intended to abandon the case (see, Belsky v Lowell, 117 AD2d 575). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for libel, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated December 9, 1988, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute.

[501]*501Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. The extent of delay was minimal, there existed a justifiable excuse for the delay, and a sufficient affidavit of merit was provided. Moreover, the defendants have failed to allege prejudice and there is no evidence that the plaintiffs intended to abandon the case (see, Belsky v Lowell, 117 AD2d 575). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 500, 562 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelstein-v-friedlander-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack