Endresen v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Endresen v. City of New York

1 A.D.2d 1029, 152 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5291

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

DecidedMay 21, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 1029 (Endresen v. City of New York) 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

Endresen v. City of New York, 1 A.D.2d 1029, 152 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, an order dated August 31, 1956, dismissed the complaint for lack of prosecution. By an order dated October 3, 1955, a motion for reargument on additional facts was granted, but the original decision was adhered to. The appeal is from the order dated October 3, 1955, insofar as it adhered to the original decision. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the words “ upon reargument ”, and by substituting therefor the words “the motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. ” As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, appellant has presented a showing of merits and a reasonable excuse for the delay. Under such circumstances, the dismissal for lack of prosecution was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, 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 personal injuries, an order dated August 31, 1956, dismissed the complaint for lack of prosecution. By an order dated October 3, 1955, a motion for reargument on additional facts was granted, but the original decision was adhered to. The appeal is from the order dated October 3, 1955, insofar as it adhered to the original decision. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the words “ upon reargument ”, and by substituting therefor the words “the motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. ” As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, appellant has presented a showing of merits and a reasonable excuse for the delay. Under such circumstances, the dismissal for lack of prosecution was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 1029, 152 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/endresen-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1956.