Passalacqua v. County Estates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Passalacqua v. County Estates, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 497, 261 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891

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

DecidedJune 21, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 497 (Passalacqua v. County Estates, Inc.) 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

Passalacqua v. County Estates, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 497, 261 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 22, 1964, which granted conditionally their motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. Order reversed, without costs; motion granted unconditionally and complaint dismissed, without costs. Pursuant to CPLR 3216 as amended, defendants duly served upon plaintiff’s attorneys a notice demanding that within 45 days plaintiff file a note of issue. Plaintiff failed to comply with such demand. In our opinion, the excuses offered by the plaintiff did not justify the delay in prosecuting the action (Heller v. Josephthal & Co., 21 A D 2d 872; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 29). The inadequacy of those excuses, combined with the failure to submit an affidavit of merits, entitled defendants to an unconditional dismissal of the complaint (Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141; Sortino v. Fisher, supra). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 22, 1964, which granted conditionally their motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution. Order reversed, without costs; motion granted unconditionally and complaint dismissed, without costs. Pursuant to CPLR 3216 as amended, defendants duly served upon plaintiff’s attorneys a notice demanding that within 45 days plaintiff file a note of issue. Plaintiff failed to comply with such demand. In our opinion, the excuses offered by the plaintiff did not justify the delay in prosecuting the action (Heller v. Josephthal & Co., 21 A D 2d 872; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 29). The inadequacy of those excuses, combined with the failure to submit an affidavit of merits, entitled defendants to an unconditional dismissal of the complaint (Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141; Sortino v. Fisher, supra). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 497, 261 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/passalacqua-v-county-estates-inc-nyappdiv-1965.