Ellison v. Klube

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellison v. Klube

283 A.D. 909, 130 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5707

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

DecidedApril 24, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 909 (Ellison v. Klube) 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

Ellison v. Klube, 283 A.D. 909, 130 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court entered in Sullivan County and made at a Special Term of the Supreme Court in Orange County which dismissed the complaints in the above entitled actions for failure to prosecute the same. Issue was joined in Action Ho. 1 on December 9, 1949, and in Action Ho. 2 on April 17, 1950. The order dismissing the complaints was made February 16, 1953. Plaintiffs’ excuse for the delay was the absence of the attending physician for one of the plaintiffs. As pointed out by the Special Term, however, there was no explanation why plaintiff was not examined by another physician, and it does not appear that there is any reasonable prospect that the absent physician can ever be produced on a trial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon and Imrie, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court entered in Sullivan County and made at a Special Term of the Supreme Court in Orange County which dismissed the complaints in the above entitled actions for failure to prosecute the same. Issue was joined in Action Ho. 1 on December 9, 1949, and in Action Ho. 2 on April 17, 1950. The order dismissing the complaints was made February 16, 1953. Plaintiffs’ excuse for the delay was the absence of the attending physician for one of the plaintiffs. As pointed out by the Special Term, however, there was no explanation why plaintiff was not examined by another physician, and it does not appear that there is any reasonable prospect that the absent physician can ever be produced on a trial. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon and Imrie, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 909, 130 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellison-v-klube-nyappdiv-1954.