McIntyre v. Branner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McIntyre v. Branner

214 A.D. 145, 212 N.Y.S. 12, 1925 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10463

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 214 A.D. 145 (McIntyre v. Branner) 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

McIntyre v. Branner, 214 A.D. 145, 212 N.Y.S. 12, 1925 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this action to recover damages from the defendant dentist for alleged malpractice, issue was joined in May, 1922. In June, 1925, the defendant moved for an order dismissing the action for lack of prosecution under Civil .Practice Act, section 181, and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, upon an affidavit that no proceedings had been taken in the action since November, 1922, when the case was marked off the Trial Term calendar in the County Court.

The learned county judge denied the motion and directed that the plaintiff be allowed to restore the case to the October, 1925, calendar. The order recites that the attorney for the plaintiff appeared in opposition to the motion, but plaintiff filed no answering affidavits, and the record does not disclose any excuse or reason for the delay in bringing the action to trial. The defendant [146]*146appealing from the order, the plaintiff does not appear or file any points in support of the denial of defendant’s motion. While the motion to dismiss was addressed largely to the discretion of the learned county judge, and this court is slow to interfere with the exercise of such discretion, still there must be something in the record to justify the exercise of discretion, and there is absolutely nothing in the papers here to excuse the plaintiff’s delay in bringing the action to trial. (Manning v. Wambold, 146 App. Div. 318; Kachel v. Stutz, 137 id. 199; Regan v. Milliken Bros., 123 id. 72; Armstrong v. Star Co., 154 id. 320.)

The order of the County Court of Westchester county, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, should be reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion should be granted, with ten dollars costs.

Kelly, P. J., Rich, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.

Order of the County Court of Westchester county, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Per Curiam:

In this action to recover damages from the defendant dentist for alleged malpractice, issue was joined in May, 1922. In June, 1925, the defendant moved for an order dismissing the action for lack of prosecution under Civil .Practice Act, section 181, and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, upon an affidavit that no proceedings had been taken in the action since November, 1922, when the case was marked off the Trial Term calendar in the County Court.

The learned county judge denied the motion and directed that the plaintiff be allowed to restore the case to the October, 1925, calendar. The order recites that the attorney for the plaintiff appeared in opposition to the motion, but plaintiff filed no answering affidavits, and the record does not disclose any excuse or reason for the delay in bringing the action to trial. The defendant [146]*146appealing from the order, the plaintiff does not appear or file any points in support of the denial of defendant’s motion. While the motion to dismiss was addressed largely to the discretion of the learned county judge, and this court is slow to interfere with the exercise of such discretion, still there must be something in the record to justify the exercise of discretion, and there is absolutely nothing in the papers here to excuse the plaintiff’s delay in bringing the action to trial. (Manning v. Wambold, 146 App. Div. 318; Kachel v. Stutz, 137 id. 199; Regan v. Milliken Bros., 123 id. 72; Armstrong v. Star Co., 154 id. 320.)

The order of the County Court of Westchester county, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, should be reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion should be granted, with ten dollars costs.

Kelly, P. J., Rich, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.

Order of the County Court of Westchester county, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D. 145, 212 N.Y.S. 12, 1925 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintyre-v-branner-nyappdiv-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack