Fishbein v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fishbein v. Hertz Corp.

20 A.D.2d 708, 247 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4469

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 708 (Fishbein v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Fishbein v. Hertz Corp., 20 A.D.2d 708, 247 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 25, 1963, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, pursuant to rule 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Order reversed, without costs; motion to dismiss granted; and complaint dismissed, without costs. In our opinion the proffered explanation by plaintiff’s attorney that in the course of the removal of his office the file was misplaced, is insufficient to excuse the 52-month delay in the prosecution of the action (Burke v. City of New York, 18 A D 2d 898 and cases there cited). In addition, the record discloses a complete absence of a showing of merit. Under the circnmstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion (Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141; Constanzo v. Schwedler, 14 A D 2d 814; Stein v. West Sayville Pharmacy, 18 A D 2d 697). 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 an action to recover damages for personal injury, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 25, 1963, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, pursuant to rule 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Order reversed, without costs; motion to dismiss granted; and complaint dismissed, without costs. In our opinion the proffered explanation by plaintiff’s attorney that in the course of the removal of his office the file was misplaced, is insufficient to excuse the 52-month delay in the prosecution of the action (Burke v. City of New York, 18 A D 2d 898 and cases there cited). In addition, the record discloses a complete absence of a showing of merit. Under the circnmstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion (Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141; Constanzo v. Schwedler, 14 A D 2d 814; Stein v. West Sayville Pharmacy, 18 A D 2d 697). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 708, 247 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fishbein-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1964.