Fagin v. Grossinger S & H Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fagin v. Grossinger S & H Inc.

20 A.D.2d 623, 244 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2742

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 623 (Fagin v. Grossinger S & H Inc.) 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

Fagin v. Grossinger S & H Inc., 20 A.D.2d 623, 244 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The affidavit of the plaintiff-respondent failed to set forth facts demonstrating that there was a meritorious cause of action. In this respect it was deficient. Furthermore, there was ño sufficient explanation in any of respondents’ papers of the untimely delay in moving and prosecuting the case. (Gallagher v. Glafington, Inc., 7 AD 2d 627; Mondo V. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 3 A D 2d 640.) Therefore, in the exercise of a provident discretion, the motion should be granted. (Appeal from an order of Brie Special Term denying defendants’ motion to dismiss complaint for failure of prosecution.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, McClusky, Henry and Noonan, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The affidavit of the plaintiff-respondent failed to set forth facts demonstrating that there was a meritorious cause of action. In this respect it was deficient. Furthermore, there was ño sufficient explanation in any of respondents’ papers of the untimely delay in moving and prosecuting the case. (Gallagher v. Glafington, Inc., 7 AD 2d 627; Mondo V. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 3 A D 2d 640.) Therefore, in the exercise of a provident discretion, the motion should be granted. (Appeal from an order of Brie Special Term denying defendants’ motion to dismiss complaint for failure of prosecution.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, McClusky, Henry and Noonan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 623, 244 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fagin-v-grossinger-s-h-inc-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack