Galio v. Restrepo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galio v. Restrepo

38 A.D.2d 586, 328 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2642

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 586 (Galio v. Restrepo) 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

Galio v. Restrepo, 38 A.D.2d 586, 328 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, defendants Vaccaro and Cortelli appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 1, 1970, which inter alia denied their motion, pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]), to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint. Order reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion granted; and action dismissed. Plaintiffs failed to adequately excuse the 14-month delay in service of the complaint and to submit a proper affidavit of merits. Under these circumstances, the denial of the motion to dismiss the action was an improvident exercise of discretion by the Special Term. Rabin, P. J., Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., not voting.

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, defendants Vaccaro and Cortelli appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 1, 1970, which inter alia denied their motion, pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]), to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint. Order reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion granted; and action dismissed. Plaintiffs failed to adequately excuse the 14-month delay in service of the complaint and to submit a proper affidavit of merits. Under these circumstances, the denial of the motion to dismiss the action was an improvident exercise of discretion by the Special Term. Rabin, P. J., Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 586, 328 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galio-v-restrepo-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack