Moshman v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moshman v. City of New York

3 A.D.2d 822, 160 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6843

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

DecidedApril 9, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 822 (Moshman 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

Moshman v. City of New York, 3 A.D.2d 822, 160 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified so as to dismiss the complaint unconditionally for lack of prosecution and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and dis[823]*823bursements to the appellant, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint herein, with costs. Counsel’s explanation of the two and one-half years’ delay in bringing the case on for trial, due to moving his office and misplacing the file, does not satisfy the requirements of reasonableness called for by section 181 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Further, plaintiffs fail to present facts indicating a meritorious cause of action. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ. [See post, pp. 824, 825.]

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

— Order unanimously modified so as to dismiss the complaint unconditionally for lack of prosecution and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and dis[823]*823bursements to the appellant, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint herein, with costs. Counsel’s explanation of the two and one-half years’ delay in bringing the case on for trial, due to moving his office and misplacing the file, does not satisfy the requirements of reasonableness called for by section 181 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Further, plaintiffs fail to present facts indicating a meritorious cause of action. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ. [See post, pp. 824, 825.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 822, 160 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moshman-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack