Manning v. Burk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manning v. Burk

19 A.D.2d 797, 242 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3221

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 797 (Manning v. Burk) 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

Manning v. Burk, 19 A.D.2d 797, 242 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of April 20, 1960, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion granted, without costs. Order of April 6, 1959, unanimously reversed and the judgment based thereon vacated, without costs. Memorandum: While we do not condone the nnseemly delay in the prosecution of this action by the plaintiff and her attorney, nevertheless, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the exercise of a reasonable discretion, the motion should have been granted. We also give consideration to the fact that there is an action still pending arising out of the same accident which must be tried in any event. (See Speier v. St. Francis Church, 3 A D 2d 732.) (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Special Term dismissing the action for failure to prosecute; also appeal from certain parts of an order of Erie Special Term denying motion of plaintiff to vacate above order of Fisher, J.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman and Noonan, JJ.

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

— Order of April 20, 1960, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion granted, without costs. Order of April 6, 1959, unanimously reversed and the judgment based thereon vacated, without costs. Memorandum: While we do not condone the nnseemly delay in the prosecution of this action by the plaintiff and her attorney, nevertheless, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the exercise of a reasonable discretion, the motion should have been granted. We also give consideration to the fact that there is an action still pending arising out of the same accident which must be tried in any event. (See Speier v. St. Francis Church, 3 A D 2d 732.) (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Special Term dismissing the action for failure to prosecute; also appeal from certain parts of an order of Erie Special Term denying motion of plaintiff to vacate above order of Fisher, J.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman and Noonan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 797, 242 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-burk-nyappdiv-1963.