O'Rourke v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Rourke v. City of New York

3 A.D.2d 713, 159 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6533

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 713 (O'Rourke 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

O'Rourke v. City of New York, 3 A.D.2d 713, 159 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order which denies a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, pursuant to rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, upon condition that a note of issue be served and filed for the next term of the court. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted, without costs. Respondent failed to present facts showing any reasonable excuse for the delay of 28 months after joinder of issue in bringing the case on for trial. The denial of the motion conditionally was, therefore, an improvident exercise of discretion. (Smith v. Schiller, 279 App. Div. 755; Johnson v. Moody’s Investors Service, 285 App. Div. 966; Mazor v. Oceana Realty Corp., 286 App. Div. 1021; Brassner Mfg. Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., 1 A D 2d 840.) Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, 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 which denies a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, pursuant to rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, upon condition that a note of issue be served and filed for the next term of the court. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted, without costs. Respondent failed to present facts showing any reasonable excuse for the delay of 28 months after joinder of issue in bringing the case on for trial. The denial of the motion conditionally was, therefore, an improvident exercise of discretion. (Smith v. Schiller, 279 App. Div. 755; Johnson v. Moody’s Investors Service, 285 App. Div. 966; Mazor v. Oceana Realty Corp., 286 App. Div. 1021; Brassner Mfg. Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., 1 A D 2d 840.) Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 713, 159 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orourke-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack