Lewis v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. New York City Transit Authority

38 A.D.3d 201, 829 N.Y.S.2d 903

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 201 (Lewis v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Lewis v. New York City Transit Authority, 38 A.D.3d 201, 829 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered October 20, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted plaintiffs motion to restore the action to a pre-note of issue calendar, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed because, regardless of the timeliness and merit of plaintiffs motion to vacate the April 1997 order dismissing the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, the postdismissal delay here was so unreasonable and so prejudicial as to amount to laches (cf. Acevedo v Navarro, 22 AD3d 391 [2005]). Concur—Sullivan, J.R, Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered October 20, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted plaintiffs motion to restore the action to a pre-note of issue calendar, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed because, regardless of the timeliness and merit of plaintiffs motion to vacate the April 1997 order dismissing the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, the postdismissal delay here was so unreasonable and so prejudicial as to amount to laches (cf. Acevedo v Navarro, 22 AD3d 391 [2005]). Concur—Sullivan, J.R, Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 201, 829 N.Y.S.2d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack