Gelch v. Malrich Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gelch v. Malrich Realty Corp.

47 A.D.2d 644, 364 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8819

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 644 (Gelch v. Malrich Realty 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

Gelch v. Malrich Realty Corp., 47 A.D.2d 644, 364 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 10, 1974, which conditionally denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]), to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted unconditionally. Plaintiffs failed to serve a complaint for approximately 28 months after a written demand therefor by defendant. Special Term should not have permitted plaintiffs to serve their complaint in the absence of a motion by them to be relieved of their default (Simons v. Sanford Plaza, 44 A D 2d 710; Beckham v. Lefferts Gen. TIosp., 36 A D 2d 726). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Cohalan, Christ and Munder, 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 injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 10, 1974, which conditionally denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]), to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted unconditionally. Plaintiffs failed to serve a complaint for approximately 28 months after a written demand therefor by defendant. Special Term should not have permitted plaintiffs to serve their complaint in the absence of a motion by them to be relieved of their default (Simons v. Sanford Plaza, 44 A D 2d 710; Beckham v. Lefferts Gen. TIosp., 36 A D 2d 726). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Cohalan, Christ and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 644, 364 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gelch-v-malrich-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack