McLoughlin v. Weiss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McLoughlin v. Weiss

23 A.D.2d 881, 259 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4174

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

DecidedMay 17, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 881 (McLoughlin v. Weiss) 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

McLoughlin v. Weiss, 23 A.D.2d 881, 259 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a wife and her husband to recover damages for personal injury and loss of services, the plaintiffs appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, respectively entered May 1, 1964 and May 7, 1964, which granted the defendants’ separate motions and dismissed the complaint as against each defendant for lack of prosecution. Orders reversed, without costs; and defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the complaint denied. The motions were based on plaintiffs’ failure to serve and file a note of issue. Under the circumstances, we give effect to the legislative intent inherent in the recent amendment to the statute (CPLR 3216 [L. 1964, eh. 974] ; see Dooley v. Gray, 22 A D 2d 791). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a wife and her husband to recover damages for personal injury and loss of services, the plaintiffs appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, respectively entered May 1, 1964 and May 7, 1964, which granted the defendants’ separate motions and dismissed the complaint as against each defendant for lack of prosecution. Orders reversed, without costs; and defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the complaint denied. The motions were based on plaintiffs’ failure to serve and file a note of issue. Under the circumstances, we give effect to the legislative intent inherent in the recent amendment to the statute (CPLR 3216 [L. 1964, eh. 974] ; see Dooley v. Gray, 22 A D 2d 791). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 881, 259 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcloughlin-v-weiss-nyappdiv-1965.