Marabella v. Lundy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marabella v. Lundy

93 A.D.2d 881, 461 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17762

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

DecidedApril 25, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 881 (Marabella v. Lundy) 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

Marabella v. Lundy, 93 A.D.2d 881, 461 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on real property, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gagliardi, J.), dated November 29, 1982, which denied appellants’ motion, inter alia, to dismiss the action for want of prosecution and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, appellants’ motion granted and plaintiff’s cross motion denied. In the absence of an acceptable excuse for the failure to respond to the calendar call and an affidavit of merits, it was an abuse of discretion to restore plaintiff’s action to the Trial Calendar (see Rothenberg v Parkway Exterminating Co., 90 AD2d 497; 22 NYCRR 675.5 [b]). Titone, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on real property, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gagliardi, J.), dated November 29, 1982, which denied appellants’ motion, inter alia, to dismiss the action for want of prosecution and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, appellants’ motion granted and plaintiff’s cross motion denied. In the absence of an acceptable excuse for the failure to respond to the calendar call and an affidavit of merits, it was an abuse of discretion to restore plaintiff’s action to the Trial Calendar (see Rothenberg v Parkway Exterminating Co., 90 AD2d 497; 22 NYCRR 675.5 [b]). Titone, J. P., Thompson, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 881, 461 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marabella-v-lundy-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack