Komyathy v. East Hampton Union Free School District

80 A.D.2d 873, 437 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10719
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 16, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 873 (Komyathy v. East Hampton Union Free School District) 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
Komyathy v. East Hampton Union Free School District, 80 A.D.2d 873, 437 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 24, 1979, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to extend their time to appear for examinations pursuant to section 50-h of the General Municipal Law and dismissed the complaint. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs’ motion granted and defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint denied. Plaintiffs’ time to comply with order of February 15, 1979 is extended for a period of 30 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. The justifiable reliance by the attorney for the plaintiffs upon the agreement concededly made by the employees of the respective attorneys to adjourn the examinations (directed by a prior order to be held by May 15, 1979) to May 18, 1979, the continuing inaction of the attorney for the defendant and his failure, prior to May 15, to protest such agreement as not a timely compliance with the order, and his refusal thereafter to conduct the examinations on May 18, 1979, constituted a course of conduct which lulled the plaintiffs’ attorney into believing that the agreement would be kept, and militates against the conclusion that plaintiffs’ failure to timely comply with the order was willful or deliberate. To the extent that, under such circumstances, Special Term may have treated this conduct as a willful default, it erred. Gibbons, J.P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Conklin v. Howell
120 A.D.2d 637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 A.D.2d 873, 437 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/komyathy-v-east-hampton-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-1981.