Jungels v. Herman Miller Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jungels v. Herman Miller Co.

191 A.D.2d 1047, 595 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3051

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 1047 (Jungels v. Herman Miller Co.) 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

Jungels v. Herman Miller Co., 191 A.D.2d 1047, 595 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Because plaintiff failed to offer a justifiable excuse for the delay and to submit material in evidentiary form demonstrating the existence of a meritorious cause of action, Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution (see, CPLR 3216 [e]; Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941; Schuman v Raymond Corp., 174 AD2d 1040, lv denied 78 NY2d 858; Zent v Board of Educ., 174 AD2d 1047). Plaintiff’s contentions that defendant had not fully complied with discovery demands and that it deliberately denied or obstructed discovery are not borne out in this record. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Because plaintiff failed to offer a justifiable excuse for the delay and to submit material in evidentiary form demonstrating the existence of a meritorious cause of action, Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution (see, CPLR 3216 [e]; Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941; Schuman v Raymond Corp., 174 AD2d 1040, lv denied 78 NY2d 858; Zent v Board of Educ., 174 AD2d 1047). Plaintiff’s contentions that defendant had not fully complied with discovery demands and that it deliberately denied or obstructed discovery are not borne out in this record. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 1047, 595 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jungels-v-herman-miller-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack