Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Craig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Craig

23 A.D.2d 754, 258 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361

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

DecidedApril 29, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 754 (Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Craig) 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

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Craig, 23 A.D.2d 754, 258 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered May 19, 1964, denying conditionally defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216 unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. In this action for damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of the receipt of alleged commercial briberies by defendant from suppliers of plaintiff there has been an extraordinary delay in prosecuting the action. The delay, however, is largely explained by the special difficulties faced by plaintiff in obtaining competent evidence to establish its entire claim, although the proof with respect to a part of it appears to be all but conclusive. Under the circumstances plaintiff is entitled to the indulgence allowed to it by Special Term in the exercise of discretion (see Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 31, 32). Concur — Breitel, J.- P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered May 19, 1964, denying conditionally defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216 unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements to either party. In this action for damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff as the result of the receipt of alleged commercial briberies by defendant from suppliers of plaintiff there has been an extraordinary delay in prosecuting the action. The delay, however, is largely explained by the special difficulties faced by plaintiff in obtaining competent evidence to establish its entire claim, although the proof with respect to a part of it appears to be all but conclusive. Under the circumstances plaintiff is entitled to the indulgence allowed to it by Special Term in the exercise of discretion (see Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 31, 32). Concur — Breitel, J.- P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 754, 258 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-ward-co-v-craig-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack