Mancino v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mancino v. City of New York

1 A.D.2d 830, 148 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6434

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 830 (Mancino v. City of New York) 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

Mancino v. City of New York, 1 A.D.2d 830, 148 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order which dismissed the complaint for lack of prosecution, on appellant’s motion, unless respondent noticed the case for trial for the November, 1954, term. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “accordingly”. As thus modified, order affirmed, without costs. Respondent has failed to offer any reasonable explanation or excuse for failure to have brought the action to trial for over three years after joinder of issue and has failed to present any showing of merits. The motion should have been unconditionally granted. (Lange v. Bagish, 285 App. Div. 833; Messing v. City of New York, 285 App. Div. 977; Mazor v. Oceana Realty Corp., 286 App. Div. 1021.) Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallman and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order which dismissed the complaint for lack of prosecution, on appellant’s motion, unless respondent noticed the case for trial for the November, 1954, term. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “accordingly”. As thus modified, order affirmed, without costs. Respondent has failed to offer any reasonable explanation or excuse for failure to have brought the action to trial for over three years after joinder of issue and has failed to present any showing of merits. The motion should have been unconditionally granted. (Lange v. Bagish, 285 App. Div. 833; Messing v. City of New York, 285 App. Div. 977; Mazor v. Oceana Realty Corp., 286 App. Div. 1021.) Beldock, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallman and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 830, 148 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancino-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack