Ling Sang Fee v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ling Sang Fee v. Schwartz

17 A.D.2d 805, 233 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7420

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 805 (Ling Sang Fee v. Schwartz) 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

Ling Sang Fee v. Schwartz, 17 A.D.2d 805, 233 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on March 13, 1962, denying motion by defendant to dismiss Action No. 1 for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, and Actions Nos. 2 and 3 remanded to the Civil Court. The plaintiff has failed to present any reasonable excuse for the delay in bringing this case on for trial, and has not shown that he has a meritorious cause of action. The conclusory statement by plaintiff that he was injured “ as a result of the negligent operation by the defendant of his motor vehicle ”, without the setting forth of [806]*806any facts to support such conclusion, is entirely unsatisfactory to show merit. The court has repeatedly held that a plaintiff, in defense of an apparently well-grounded motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, must “ establish by evidentiary facts the merits of the cause of action.” (Gallagher v. Claffington, 7 A D 2d 627.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on March 13, 1962, denying motion by defendant to dismiss Action No. 1 for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs, and Actions Nos. 2 and 3 remanded to the Civil Court. The plaintiff has failed to present any reasonable excuse for the delay in bringing this case on for trial, and has not shown that he has a meritorious cause of action. The conclusory statement by plaintiff that he was injured “ as a result of the negligent operation by the defendant of his motor vehicle ”, without the setting forth of [806]*806any facts to support such conclusion, is entirely unsatisfactory to show merit. The court has repeatedly held that a plaintiff, in defense of an apparently well-grounded motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, must “ establish by evidentiary facts the merits of the cause of action.” (Gallagher v. Claffington, 7 A D 2d 627.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 805, 233 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ling-sang-fee-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1962.