Levitt v. Ford Motor Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Levitt v. Ford Motor Co.

29 A.D.2d 688, 287 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4768

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 688 (Levitt v. Ford Motor 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

Levitt v. Ford Motor Co., 29 A.D.2d 688, 287 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 25, 1966, reversed insofar as appealed from .by defendants, i.e., as to the second ordering paragraph, which denied their motions to dismiss •the action for failure to prosecute, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant Ford Motor Co., and said motions granted. Appeal by plaintiffs from so much of said order as denied their cross motion for a change of venue dismissed, as academic. The legislative intent in the 1967 enactment of new CPLR 3216 (L. 1967, ch. 770) motivates application of that enactment to the ease at bar. However, plaintiffs’ failure to file a note of issue or to justify their failure, coupled with the absence of an affidavit as to the merits of their action, [689]*689compels a dismissal of their action for failure to prosecute (CPLR 3216, subd. [e]). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 25, 1966, reversed insofar as appealed from .by defendants, i.e., as to the second ordering paragraph, which denied their motions to dismiss •the action for failure to prosecute, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant Ford Motor Co., and said motions granted. Appeal by plaintiffs from so much of said order as denied their cross motion for a change of venue dismissed, as academic. The legislative intent in the 1967 enactment of new CPLR 3216 (L. 1967, ch. 770) motivates application of that enactment to the ease at bar. However, plaintiffs’ failure to file a note of issue or to justify their failure, coupled with the absence of an affidavit as to the merits of their action, [689]*689compels a dismissal of their action for failure to prosecute (CPLR 3216, subd. [e]). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 688, 287 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levitt-v-ford-motor-co-nyappdiv-1968.