Filippi v. Grand Union Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Filippi v. Grand Union Co.

30 A.D.2d 532, 291 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4073

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

DecidedMay 6, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 532 (Filippi v. Grand Union Co.) 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

Filippi v. Grand Union Co., 30 A.D.2d 532, 291 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury which was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 16, 1967, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action, restore the action to the Trial Calendar and transfer the action to the Civil Court of the City of New York. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to each respondent. In our opinion, the excuse proffered (that plaintiff’s attorneys were under the impression that a calendar answering service was following the case and would notify them of. calendar calls as they arose) falls within the category of “Law Office Failures” characterized in Sortino v. Fisher (20 A D 2d 25, 29). Such excuses have been rejected by this court (Tepperman v. Peri, 29 A D 2d 893, and cases there cited). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury which was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 16, 1967, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action, restore the action to the Trial Calendar and transfer the action to the Civil Court of the City of New York. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to each respondent. In our opinion, the excuse proffered (that plaintiff’s attorneys were under the impression that a calendar answering service was following the case and would notify them of. calendar calls as they arose) falls within the category of “Law Office Failures” characterized in Sortino v. Fisher (20 A D 2d 25, 29). Such excuses have been rejected by this court (Tepperman v. Peri, 29 A D 2d 893, and cases there cited). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 532, 291 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filippi-v-grand-union-co-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack