Goldman v. New York Central Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. New York Central Railroad

274 A.D. 1068, 1949 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6095

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 1949·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for loss of services and for expenses, defendant appeals from an order granting its motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, unless plaintiff be ready to dispose of the action when reached for trial in the regular course. Order modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the words “unless the plaintiff be ready to dispose of the action when reached for trial in the regular course.” As so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. In our opinion, the motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution should have been granted without condition. Plaintiff made no attempt to excuse the unreasonable delay of seventeen years. The circumstance that the note of issue was served shortly before the service of the motion to dismiss was not sufficient to warrant a granting of the motion on conditions which were tantamount to a denial of the motion. (Seymour v. Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry. Co., 12 App. Div. 300.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, 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 loss of services and for expenses, defendant appeals from an order granting its motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, unless plaintiff be ready to dispose of the action when reached for trial in the regular course. Order modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the words “unless the plaintiff be ready to dispose of the action when reached for trial in the regular course.” As so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. In our opinion, the motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution should have been granted without condition. Plaintiff made no attempt to excuse the unreasonable delay of seventeen years. The circumstance that the note of issue was served shortly before the service of the motion to dismiss was not sufficient to warrant a granting of the motion on conditions which were tantamount to a denial of the motion. (Seymour v. Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry. Co., 12 App. Div. 300.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Goldman v. New York Central Railroad, 274 A.D. 1068, 1949 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

274 A.D. 1068 (Goldman v. New York Central Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related