Pisarik v. McCormack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pisarik v. McCormack

76 A.D.2d 906, 429 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11999

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 1980·Published

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated June 7, 1979, as denied his motion to dismiss the action pursuant to either section 253 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law or CPLR 3215 (subd [c]). Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the requirements of section 253 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was fatally defective to their action (see Lederman v McLean Trucking Co., 41 AD2d 5; Howland v Giorgetti, 12 AD2d 953; Metcalf v Cowburn, 44 AD2d 650). Furthermore, in the absence of any acceptable excuse for the inordinate delay present, it was also an abuse of discretion to refuse to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3215 (subd [c]). Gulotta, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, 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 injuries, etc., defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated June 7, 1979, as denied his motion to dismiss the action pursuant to either section 253 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law or CPLR 3215 (subd [c]). Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the requirements of section 253 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law was fatally defective to their action (see Lederman v McLean Trucking Co., 41 AD2d 5; Howland v Giorgetti, 12 AD2d 953; Metcalf v Cowburn, 44 AD2d 650). Furthermore, in the absence of any acceptable excuse for the inordinate delay present, it was also an abuse of discretion to refuse to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3215 (subd [c]). Gulotta, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Pisarik v. McCormack, 76 A.D.2d 906, 429 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

76 A.D.2d 906 (Pisarik v. McCormack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related