McDonald v. McCabe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McDonald v. McCabe

29 A.D.2d 770, 288 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4705

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 770 (McDonald v. McCabe) 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

McDonald v. McCabe, 29 A.D.2d 770, 288 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 23, 1967, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of/the action and for other relief granted. The delay in seeking to file a second statement of readiness was adequately explained and respondent points to no specific prejudice which would overcome the beneficial policy that controversies should be disposed of on their merits. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and restore the action to the Trial Calendar (Aráis V. Schwartz, 29 A D 2d 559; Blau v. Levine, 28 A D 2d 1137; Tañe v. Kiddy City Amusement Enterprises, 28 A D 2d 1211). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 23, 1967, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of/the action and for other relief granted. The delay in seeking to file a second statement of readiness was adequately explained and respondent points to no specific prejudice which would overcome the beneficial policy that controversies should be disposed of on their merits. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and restore the action to the Trial Calendar (Aráis V. Schwartz, 29 A D 2d 559; Blau v. Levine, 28 A D 2d 1137; Tañe v. Kiddy City Amusement Enterprises, 28 A D 2d 1211). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 770, 288 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-mccabe-nyappdiv-1968.