Ellicott v. Tavern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellicott v. Tavern

82 A.D.2d 748, 441 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14380

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

DecidedJune 11, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.2d 748 (Ellicott v. Tavern) 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

Ellicott v. Tavern, 82 A.D.2d 748, 441 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tyler, J.), entered June 30, 1980, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for delay in prosecution, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to condition the denial of said motion on the payment, within 20 days of the date of this court’s order, of $250 costs and the costs of this appeal by plaintiff’s attorney; in the event said condition is not complied with, the aforesaid order is reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. It is apparent to us that plaintiff has not abandoned this action which, from the affidavit submitted, appears to have merit. In the circumstances, however, we believe that costs should have been imposed upon plaintiff’s attorney, and we condition the denial of defendant’s motion accordingly. (Neyra Y Alba v Pelham Foods, 46 AD2d 760; Newell v Lane, 45 AD2d 704.) Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Markewich, Bloom and Fein, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tyler, J.), entered June 30, 1980, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for delay in prosecution, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to condition the denial of said motion on the payment, within 20 days of the date of this court’s order, of $250 costs and the costs of this appeal by plaintiff’s attorney; in the event said condition is not complied with, the aforesaid order is reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. It is apparent to us that plaintiff has not abandoned this action which, from the affidavit submitted, appears to have merit. In the circumstances, however, we believe that costs should have been imposed upon plaintiff’s attorney, and we condition the denial of defendant’s motion accordingly. (Neyra Y Alba v Pelham Foods, 46 AD2d 760; Newell v Lane, 45 AD2d 704.) Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Markewich, Bloom and Fein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 748, 441 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellicott-v-tavern-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack