Mancino v. City of New York

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

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

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).

1 A.D.2d 830 (Mancino v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lange v. Bagish
285 A.D. 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
Messing v. City of New York
285 A.D. 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
Mazor v. Oceana Realty Corp.
286 A.D. 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)