Malekian v. McLean Trucking Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malekian v. McLean Trucking Co.

10 A.D.2d 825, 198 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10641

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

DecidedApril 12, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 825 (Malekian v. McLean Trucking 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

Malekian v. McLean Trucking Co., 10 A.D.2d 825, 198 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the motion to restore the action to the calendar is denied. The same consequences flow from plaintiff’s failure to restore the action to the Trial Calendar within one year after being marked off as upon failure to prosecute an action. (Barnett Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 7 A D 2d 897.) The removal of counsel’s office, the assigned reason for the [826]*826delay in moving to restore this cause, does not explain the unreasonable neglect apparent herein. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 181; Moshman v. City of New York, 3 A D 2d 824.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, M. M. Prank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendant-appellant, and the motion to restore the action to the calendar is denied. The same consequences flow from plaintiff’s failure to restore the action to the Trial Calendar within one year after being marked off as upon failure to prosecute an action. (Barnett Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 7 A D 2d 897.) The removal of counsel’s office, the assigned reason for the [826]*826delay in moving to restore this cause, does not explain the unreasonable neglect apparent herein. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 181; Moshman v. City of New York, 3 A D 2d 824.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, M. M. Prank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 825, 198 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malekian-v-mclean-trucking-co-nyappdiv-1960.