Hipple v. Bloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hipple v. Bloom

149 A.D.2d 406, 542 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4408

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

DecidedApril 3, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 406 (Hipple v. Bloom) 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

Hipple v. Bloom, 149 A.D.2d 406, 542 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County [407]*407(Dachenhausen,- J.), entered December 11, 1987, which granted the defendant’s motion to strike the action from the Trial Calendar and to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs case was marked off the Trial Calendar in January 1983 after her counsel failed to appear at a calendar call. No motion was ever made to restore the action to the calendar. In September 1987 the plaintiff simply filed a new note of issue. The defendant’s motion to strike the case from the Trial Calendar and to dismiss the complaint was properly granted. The plaintiff has not shown that her almost five-year delay in prosecution is excusable, that her action is meritorious, or that the defendant will not be prejudiced by its restoration (see, Monacelli v Board of Educ., 92 AD2d 930; Sheehan v Hollywood, 112 AD2d 211, 212). Mangano, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County [407]*407(Dachenhausen,- J.), entered December 11, 1987, which granted the defendant’s motion to strike the action from the Trial Calendar and to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs case was marked off the Trial Calendar in January 1983 after her counsel failed to appear at a calendar call. No motion was ever made to restore the action to the calendar. In September 1987 the plaintiff simply filed a new note of issue. The defendant’s motion to strike the case from the Trial Calendar and to dismiss the complaint was properly granted. The plaintiff has not shown that her almost five-year delay in prosecution is excusable, that her action is meritorious, or that the defendant will not be prejudiced by its restoration (see, Monacelli v Board of Educ., 92 AD2d 930; Sheehan v Hollywood, 112 AD2d 211, 212). Mangano, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 406, 542 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hipple-v-bloom-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack