Kallman v. Wolf Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kallman v. Wolf Corp.

19 A.D.2d 521, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3772

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

DecidedMay 14, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 521 (Kallman v. Wolf Corp.) 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

Kallman v. Wolf Corp., 19 A.D.2d 521, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order entered on September 26, 1962, denying defendants-appellants motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff, if he be so advised, may move within 30 days from the service of the order entered herein to vacate the dismissal on a proper affidavit of merits. In the light of this record and the nature of the companion action, it may well be that the inaction or delay is excusable. Nevertheless, to be relieved of the consequence of failure to prosecute, plaintiff, in addition, is required to submit an affidavit of merits. (Ruderman v. Feffer, 10 A D 2d 704; Be Long Gorp. v. J. Rich Steers, Inc., 10 A D 2d 705.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

— Order entered on September 26, 1962, denying defendants-appellants motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff, if he be so advised, may move within 30 days from the service of the order entered herein to vacate the dismissal on a proper affidavit of merits. In the light of this record and the nature of the companion action, it may well be that the inaction or delay is excusable. Nevertheless, to be relieved of the consequence of failure to prosecute, plaintiff, in addition, is required to submit an affidavit of merits. (Ruderman v. Feffer, 10 A D 2d 704; Be Long Gorp. v. J. Rich Steers, Inc., 10 A D 2d 705.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 521, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kallman-v-wolf-corp-nyappdiv-1963.