Nietzel v. Port of New York Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nietzel v. Port of New York Authority

20 A.D.2d 821, 249 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4124

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 821 (Nietzel v. Port of New York Authority) 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

Nietzel v. Port of New York Authority, 20 A.D.2d 821, 249 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme iCourt, Queens County, dated November 20, 1963, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution (CPLR 3216). Order affirmed, without costs (Conlon v. Andreou, 20 A D 2d 717; Keatimg v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to deny the motion, with the following memorandum: Defendant did not move to dismiss for lack of prosecution of the action until after plaintiff had served a note of issue and statement of readiness. Defendant .thus acquiesced in the delay, and the motion should be denied (cf. Thompson v. Hook, 18 A D 2d 710).

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme iCourt, Queens County, dated November 20, 1963, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution (CPLR 3216). Order affirmed, without costs (Conlon v. Andreou, 20 A D 2d 717; Keatimg v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order and to deny the motion, with the following memorandum: Defendant did not move to dismiss for lack of prosecution of the action until after plaintiff had served a note of issue and statement of readiness. Defendant .thus acquiesced in the delay, and the motion should be denied (cf. Thompson v. Hook, 18 A D 2d 710).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 821, 249 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nietzel-v-port-of-new-york-authority-nyappdiv-1964.