Homburger v. Geschwind

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Homburger v. Geschwind

75 A.D.2d 864, 427 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11491

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

DecidedMay 19, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 864 (Homburger v. Geschwind) 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

Homburger v. Geschwind, 75 A.D.2d 864, 427 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

a malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 7, 1980, which (1) denied his motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint, and (2) granted plaintiff’s cross motion to require him to accept the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendant’s motion to dismiss the action is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion is denied. In opposing defendant’s dismissal motion brought pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]), plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and to establish the legal merit of her claim through evidentiary facts attested to by individuals with personal knowledge. Consequently, the denial of defendant’s motion was an abuse of discretion (Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594). Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

a malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 7, 1980, which (1) denied his motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint, and (2) granted plaintiff’s cross motion to require him to accept the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, defendant’s motion to dismiss the action is granted and plaintiff’s cross motion is denied. In opposing defendant’s dismissal motion brought pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]), plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and to establish the legal merit of her claim through evidentiary facts attested to by individuals with personal knowledge. Consequently, the denial of defendant’s motion was an abuse of discretion (Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594). Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 864, 427 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homburger-v-geschwind-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack