Mayo v. New Sands Operating Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mayo v. New Sands Operating Corp.

29 A.D.2d 926, 288 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4314

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

DecidedApril 4, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 926 (Mayo v. New Sands Operating Corp.) 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

Mayo v. New Sands Operating Corp., 29 A.D.2d 926, 288 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered September 28, 1967, granting reargument and upon reargument adhering to original decision granting defendant-respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution and denying plaintiff-appellant’s cross motion to transfer the action to the Civil Court, reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion to dismiss is denied, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff-appellant’s cross motion to transfer the cause to the Civil Court is granted, conditioned on the payment of a full bill of costs to defendant-respondent. Since the order was dated September 28, 1967, subsequent to the effective date of CPLR 3216, the legislative policy therein expressed, in our opinion, does not warrant dismissal. Concur — Tilzer, MeGivern and McNally, JJ.; Eager, J. P., and Steuer, J., dissent in the following memorandum: We dissent. Under the circumstances here, we do not agree that this court should be moved on “ the facts and in the exercise of discretion ” to reverse the order of Special Term. We would affirm as a matter of law. (See Guhl v. Martin 29 A D 2d 858.)

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

Order, entered September 28, 1967, granting reargument and upon reargument adhering to original decision granting defendant-respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution and denying plaintiff-appellant’s cross motion to transfer the action to the Civil Court, reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion to dismiss is denied, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff-appellant’s cross motion to transfer the cause to the Civil Court is granted, conditioned on the payment of a full bill of costs to defendant-respondent. Since the order was dated September 28, 1967, subsequent to the effective date of CPLR 3216, the legislative policy therein expressed, in our opinion, does not warrant dismissal. Concur — Tilzer, MeGivern and McNally, JJ.; Eager, J. P., and Steuer, J., dissent in the following memorandum: We dissent. Under the circumstances here, we do not agree that this court should be moved on “ the facts and in the exercise of discretion ” to reverse the order of Special Term. We would affirm as a matter of law. (See Guhl v. Martin 29 A D 2d 858.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 926, 288 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayo-v-new-sands-operating-corp-nyappdiv-1968.