Kramer v. Edenwald Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kramer v. Edenwald Construction Co.

279 A.D.2d 425, 720 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 884

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 30, 2001·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about December 14, 1999, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to show a reasonable excuse for his delay in prosecuting this now 13-year-old case which would warrant its restoration to the calendar (see, Todd Co. v Birnbaum, 182 AD2d 505, 506), nor was there a sufficient showing of merit and lack of prejudice to defendant. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about December 14, 1999, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to show a reasonable excuse for his delay in prosecuting this now 13-year-old case which would warrant its restoration to the calendar (see, Todd Co. v Birnbaum, 182 AD2d 505, 506), nor was there a sufficient showing of merit and lack of prejudice to defendant. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Kramer v. Edenwald Construction Co., 279 A.D.2d 425, 720 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

279 A.D.2d 425 (Kramer v. Edenwald Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related