Milazzo v. Barnaby Concrete Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Milazzo v. Barnaby Concrete Corp.

30 A.D.2d 802, 291 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3373

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 802 (Milazzo v. Barnaby Concrete Corp.) 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

Milazzo v. Barnaby Concrete Corp., 30 A.D.2d 802, 291 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered December 6, 1967, herein appealed from unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the complaint and sever the action as to appellants is granted. The accident upon which this action is premised occurred more than seven years ago. Following upon the commencement of an action almost three years thereafter, the case proceeded in somewhat desultory fashion. There was a lack of compliance with the demand served pursuant to CPLR 3216, which omission continued even up to the return date of the motion to dismiss, which date was almost three months later. No valid excuse or good reason is advanced for the failure to comply with the 45-day notice and demand. Concur— Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McGivern, JJ.

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

Order entered December 6, 1967, herein appealed from unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the complaint and sever the action as to appellants is granted. The accident upon which this action is premised occurred more than seven years ago. Following upon the commencement of an action almost three years thereafter, the case proceeded in somewhat desultory fashion. There was a lack of compliance with the demand served pursuant to CPLR 3216, which omission continued even up to the return date of the motion to dismiss, which date was almost three months later. No valid excuse or good reason is advanced for the failure to comply with the 45-day notice and demand. Concur— Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McGivern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 802, 291 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milazzo-v-barnaby-concrete-corp-nyappdiv-1968.