Kozinitsky v. Richman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kozinitsky v. Richman

247 A.D.2d 366, 667 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 855

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 366 (Kozinitsky v. Richman) 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

Kozinitsky v. Richman, 247 A.D.2d 366, 667 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated January 13, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the same court dated November 27, 1995, which conditionally restored the matter to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly dismissed the action as the plaintiff failed to comply with all the conditions of the November 27, 1995, order which conditionally restored this matter to the Trial Calendar. Since those conditions were not complied with, we find that the matter was properly dismissed under CPLR 3404.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are academic.

Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated January 13, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the same court dated November 27, 1995, which conditionally restored the matter to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly dismissed the action as the plaintiff failed to comply with all the conditions of the November 27, 1995, order which conditionally restored this matter to the Trial Calendar. Since those conditions were not complied with, we find that the matter was properly dismissed under CPLR 3404.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are academic.

Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 366, 667 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozinitsky-v-richman-nyappdiv-1998.