Hencken v. Edelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hencken v. Edelman

15 A.D.2d 744, 224 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11664

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 744 (Hencken v. Edelman) 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

Hencken v. Edelman, 15 A.D.2d 744, 224 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Issue was joined in this action on July 17, 1959. Thereafter defendant served a demand for a bill of particulars and plaintiffs moved to modify the demand. On January 11, 1960, an order was made modifying the demand and directing plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars within 20 days. This order was ignored until after the present motion was made to dismiss the complaint. The alacrity with which the bill of particulars and notice of pretrial examination were so served completely negates the reasons advanced by plaintiffs for their failure to proceed diligently. No credible facts have been submitted showing a reasonable excuse for the total inaction of plaintiffs for a period of 19 months. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

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

Issue was joined in this action on July 17, 1959. Thereafter defendant served a demand for a bill of particulars and plaintiffs moved to modify the demand. On January 11, 1960, an order was made modifying the demand and directing plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars within 20 days. This order was ignored until after the present motion was made to dismiss the complaint. The alacrity with which the bill of particulars and notice of pretrial examination were so served completely negates the reasons advanced by plaintiffs for their failure to proceed diligently. No credible facts have been submitted showing a reasonable excuse for the total inaction of plaintiffs for a period of 19 months. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 744, 224 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hencken-v-edelman-nyappdiv-1962.