Foisy v. Penn Aluminum Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foisy v. Penn Aluminum Inc.

31 A.D.2d 783, 296 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4769

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 783 (Foisy v. Penn Aluminum 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

Foisy v. Penn Aluminum Inc., 31 A.D.2d 783, 296 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: Special Term granted defendant’s motion ito dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to prosecute, pursuant to CPLR 3216. Respondent admits that a note of issue was filed just prior to or simultaneous with the making of the motion to dismiss. Under these circumstances the only delay which Special Term could consider was that which occurred since the date of the filing of the note of issue (Giancone v. City of N. Y., 29 A D 2d 756). As we held in Williams v. Baker (29 A D 2d 915) the facts here presented require a denial of the motion to dismiss. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing complaint.) Present—Bastow, P. J., Goldman, Del Vecchio, Marsh and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: Special Term granted defendant’s motion ito dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to prosecute, pursuant to CPLR 3216. Respondent admits that a note of issue was filed just prior to or simultaneous with the making of the motion to dismiss. Under these circumstances the only delay which Special Term could consider was that which occurred since the date of the filing of the note of issue (Giancone v. City of N. Y., 29 A D 2d 756). As we held in Williams v. Baker (29 A D 2d 915) the facts here presented require a denial of the motion to dismiss. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing complaint.) Present—Bastow, P. J., Goldman, Del Vecchio, Marsh and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 783, 296 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foisy-v-penn-aluminum-inc-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack