Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach

191 A.D.2d 478, 596 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2094

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 478 (Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach) 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

Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach, 191 A.D.2d 478, 596 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated October 1, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ first action was dismissed after the Supreme Court determined that they had inexcusably delayed in complying with a prior order directing them to file a note of issue. Under these circumstances, the dismissal of the prior action was for "neglect to prosecute” within the meaning of CPLR 205 (a) (see, Kelly v Rosenthal, 176 AD2d 283; Scharlack v Richmond Mem. Hosp., 144 AD2d 354). Since the six-month period to commence a new action pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) is not available to the plaintiffs, the instant action was properly dismissed as barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.

Parenthetically, we note that the record on appeal contains certain information and papers which are not properly part of the record. Those materials were not considered in the determination of the appeal (see, Matter of Wish Realty Corp. v Starr, 56 AD2d 656). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Ritter and Pizzuto, 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, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated October 1, 1990, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ first action was dismissed after the Supreme Court determined that they had inexcusably delayed in complying with a prior order directing them to file a note of issue. Under these circumstances, the dismissal of the prior action was for "neglect to prosecute” within the meaning of CPLR 205 (a) (see, Kelly v Rosenthal, 176 AD2d 283; Scharlack v Richmond Mem. Hosp., 144 AD2d 354). Since the six-month period to commence a new action pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) is not available to the plaintiffs, the instant action was properly dismissed as barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.

Parenthetically, we note that the record on appeal contains certain information and papers which are not properly part of the record. Those materials were not considered in the determination of the appeal (see, Matter of Wish Realty Corp. v Starr, 56 AD2d 656). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 478, 596 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ginsberg-v-city-of-long-beach-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack