McAuliffe v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McAuliffe v. Bailey

39 A.D.2d 583, 332 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4908

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

DecidedApril 17, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 583 (McAuliffe v. Bailey) 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

McAuliffe v. Bailey, 39 A.D.2d 583, 332 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 6, 1971, which granted its motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]) unless plaintiff served his complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry. Order modified by striking from the first decretal paragraph everything following the words that the motion is “granted”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss the action one year after service of its notice of appearance and demand for complaint. Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion, offering neither an excuse for his delay nor an affidavit of merits. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the action should have been granted unconditionally (Burgess v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 38 A D 2d 750; Crudele v. Fishman Co., 36 A D 2d 631; Beckham v. Lefferts Gen. Hosp., 36 A D 2d 726). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 6, 1971, which granted its motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]) unless plaintiff served his complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry. Order modified by striking from the first decretal paragraph everything following the words that the motion is “granted”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss the action one year after service of its notice of appearance and demand for complaint. Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion, offering neither an excuse for his delay nor an affidavit of merits. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the action should have been granted unconditionally (Burgess v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 38 A D 2d 750; Crudele v. Fishman Co., 36 A D 2d 631; Beckham v. Lefferts Gen. Hosp., 36 A D 2d 726). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 583, 332 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcauliffe-v-bailey-nyappdiv-1972.