Keating v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keating v. Smith

20 A.D.2d 141, 245 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2617

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 141 (Keating v. Smith) 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

Keating v. Smith, 20 A.D.2d 141, 245 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the light of the recent enactment of rule 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, we deem it advisable to direct attention to our present requirements with respect to motions to dismiss a complaint for unreasonable neglect in the prosecution of an action.

On such a motion the plaintiff is required to show: (1) a reasonable excuse or justification for the delay; and (2) that the cause of action has merit. A mere recital of the conclusory allegations of the complaint or the unsupported conclusion that merit exists will not suffice. Neither will an affidavit of merits, which is made by an attorney who has no personal knowledge of [142]*142the facts, meet this requirement. Statements under oath of an evidentiary nature must be presented from which a determination may be made: (1) as to whether the proffered excuse is valid, and (2) as to whether evidence exists to support the allegations of the complaint. Every party who invokes the processes of the court has the duty to go forward with reasonable dispatch. When he fails to do so, the burden falls upon him not only to explain the delay but also to establish by sworn proof the soundness of his cause of action.

The plaintiff here has failed to meet these requirements. Accordingly, the order should be reversed, without costs; the motion to dismiss should be granted unconditionally; and the complaint dismissed, without prejudice, however, to an application by plaintiff at Special Term, upon proper papers, to vacate the order of dismissal, if the plaintiff be so advised.

Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, without costs; motion to dismiss granted unconditionally; and complaint dismissed, without prejudice to an application by plaintiff at Special Term, upon proper papers, to vacate the order of dismissal, if the plaintiff be so advised.

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

Per Curiam.

In the light of the recent enactment of rule 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, we deem it advisable to direct attention to our present requirements with respect to motions to dismiss a complaint for unreasonable neglect in the prosecution of an action.

On such a motion the plaintiff is required to show: (1) a reasonable excuse or justification for the delay; and (2) that the cause of action has merit. A mere recital of the conclusory allegations of the complaint or the unsupported conclusion that merit exists will not suffice. Neither will an affidavit of merits, which is made by an attorney who has no personal knowledge of [142]*142the facts, meet this requirement. Statements under oath of an evidentiary nature must be presented from which a determination may be made: (1) as to whether the proffered excuse is valid, and (2) as to whether evidence exists to support the allegations of the complaint. Every party who invokes the processes of the court has the duty to go forward with reasonable dispatch. When he fails to do so, the burden falls upon him not only to explain the delay but also to establish by sworn proof the soundness of his cause of action.

The plaintiff here has failed to meet these requirements. Accordingly, the order should be reversed, without costs; the motion to dismiss should be granted unconditionally; and the complaint dismissed, without prejudice, however, to an application by plaintiff at Special Term, upon proper papers, to vacate the order of dismissal, if the plaintiff be so advised.

Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, without costs; motion to dismiss granted unconditionally; and complaint dismissed, without prejudice to an application by plaintiff at Special Term, upon proper papers, to vacate the order of dismissal, if the plaintiff be so advised.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 141, 245 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keating-v-smith-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack