Higgins v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Higgins v. County of Nassau

76 A.D.2d 881, 432 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11956

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

DecidedJune 16, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 881 (Higgins v. County of Nassau) 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

Higgins v. County of Nassau, 76 A.D.2d 881, 432 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., which action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, the defendant County of Nassau appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 3, 1980, which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. It was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing of facts sufficient to excuse his delay in prosecution and to establish a meritorious cause of action (see Barasch v [882]*882Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; Monahan v Fiore, 71 AD2d 914). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and Gulotta, 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., which action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, the defendant County of Nassau appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 3, 1980, which granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal and to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. It was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing of facts sufficient to excuse his delay in prosecution and to establish a meritorious cause of action (see Barasch v [882]*882Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; Monahan v Fiore, 71 AD2d 914). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 881, 432 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgins-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack