Marabella v. Lundy

New York Court of Appeals

Marabella v. Lundy

454 N.E.2d 122, 60 N.Y.2d 581, 467 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3299

New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 12, 1983·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with cost.

We need not consider the recent amendments to the CPLR allowing the lower courts to exercise discretion “to excuse delay or default resulting from law office failure” (CPLR 2005, 3012, subd [d]), for we agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff’s papers failed to establish the merit of the cause of action as required by 22 NYCRR 675.5 (b).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with cost.

We need not consider the recent amendments to the CPLR allowing the lower courts to exercise discretion “to excuse delay or default resulting from law office failure” (CPLR 2005, 3012, subd [d]), for we agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff’s papers failed to establish the merit of the cause of action as required by 22 NYCRR 675.5 (b).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Marabella v. Lundy, 454 N.E.2d 122, 60 N.Y.2d 581, 467 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3299 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

454 N.E.2d 122 (Marabella v. Lundy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related