Livingston v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Livingston v. Kaufman

44 A.D.2d 668, 354 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5220

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

DecidedApril 18, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 668 (Livingston v. Kaufman) 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

Livingston v. Kaufman, 44 A.D.2d 668, 354 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on December 19, 1973, granting plaintiff’s motion to restore this personal injury action to the Trial Calendar, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, by adding thereto a provision imposing $250 costs on plaintiff’s attorneys, payable to defendant-appellant, Ravitz, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff’s attorneys failed to timely serve and file a statement of readiness herein and failed thereafter to promptly move to restore this action to the calendar. Under the circumstances it was an improper exercise of discretion to grant the plaintiff’s motion without the imposition of suitable terms (Moran v. Rynar, 39 A D 2d 718; Davies v. Arno Serv. Co., N. Y. L. J., March 18, 1974, p. 16, col. 1). Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on December 19, 1973, granting plaintiff’s motion to restore this personal injury action to the Trial Calendar, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, by adding thereto a provision imposing $250 costs on plaintiff’s attorneys, payable to defendant-appellant, Ravitz, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff’s attorneys failed to timely serve and file a statement of readiness herein and failed thereafter to promptly move to restore this action to the calendar. Under the circumstances it was an improper exercise of discretion to grant the plaintiff’s motion without the imposition of suitable terms (Moran v. Rynar, 39 A D 2d 718; Davies v. Arno Serv. Co., N. Y. L. J., March 18, 1974, p. 16, col. 1). Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 668, 354 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livingston-v-kaufman-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack