Hansen v. Loomis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hansen v. Loomis

137 A.D.2d 584, 524 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1040

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.2d 584 (Hansen v. Loomis) 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

Hansen v. Loomis, 137 A.D.2d 584, 524 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to [585]*585recover damages for libel and slander, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered March 10, 1987, which denied his motion to restore the action to the Trial Calendar; (2) an order of the same court, dated March 23, 1987, which dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and (3) an order of the same court, entered July 16, 1987, which denied his motion for reargument of the two prior orders.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered July 16, 1987 is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered March 10, 1987, and the order dated March 23, 1987, respectively, are affirmed, and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Based on the facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice and refusing to restore the case to the Trial Calendar. The plaintiff had been granted several adjournments by the trial court over a period of approximately one year. Moreover, prior to the last adjournment, the plaintiff was informed that no further adjournments would be granted. Despite this warning, the plaintiff was not ready to proceed on the final adjourned date. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to [585]*585recover damages for libel and slander, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered March 10, 1987, which denied his motion to restore the action to the Trial Calendar; (2) an order of the same court, dated March 23, 1987, which dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and (3) an order of the same court, entered July 16, 1987, which denied his motion for reargument of the two prior orders.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered July 16, 1987 is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered March 10, 1987, and the order dated March 23, 1987, respectively, are affirmed, and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Based on the facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice and refusing to restore the case to the Trial Calendar. The plaintiff had been granted several adjournments by the trial court over a period of approximately one year. Moreover, prior to the last adjournment, the plaintiff was informed that no further adjournments would be granted. Despite this warning, the plaintiff was not ready to proceed on the final adjourned date. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 584, 524 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-loomis-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack