Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Kramer v. Edenwald Construction Co.

Kramer v. Edenwald Construction Co.

279 A.D.2d 425, 720 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 884
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 30, 2001
StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 425 (Kramer v. Edenwald Construction Co.) 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
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).

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

Related

Todd Co. v. Birnbaum
182 A.D.2d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 A.D.2d 425, 720 N.Y.S.2d 339, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramer-v-edenwald-construction-co-nyappdiv-2001.