Messing v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Messing v. City of New York

285 A.D. 977, 139 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6354

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 285 A.D. 977 (Messing v. City of New York) 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

Messing v. City of New York, 285 A.D. 977, 139 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order granting the motion of defendant City of New York to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, unless the case be placed on the calendar for the next available term. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “granted”. As thus modified, order [978]*978affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. Respondents failed to explain or excuse the delay of more than forty-one months in bringing the case on for trial. On the facts disclosed by the record, appellant was entitled to dismissal of the complaint without condition, and it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny appellant such relief. (Lange v. Bagish, 285 App. Div. 833; Beer-Meisel Lodge No. 8 Ind. Order Brith Abraham v. Herschbein, 270 App. Div. 847.) MacCrate, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, 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, the appeal is from an order granting the motion of defendant City of New York to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, unless the case be placed on the calendar for the next available term. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “granted”. As thus modified, order [978]*978affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. Respondents failed to explain or excuse the delay of more than forty-one months in bringing the case on for trial. On the facts disclosed by the record, appellant was entitled to dismissal of the complaint without condition, and it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny appellant such relief. (Lange v. Bagish, 285 App. Div. 833; Beer-Meisel Lodge No. 8 Ind. Order Brith Abraham v. Herschbein, 270 App. Div. 847.) MacCrate, Acting P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 977, 139 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/messing-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack