Postell v. Zirulnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Postell v. Zirulnik

70 A.D.2d 633, 416 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12074

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

DecidedMay 21, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.2d 633 (Postell v. Zirulnik) 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

Postell v. Zirulnik, 70 A.D.2d 633, 416 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12074 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an automobile negligence action, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 18, 1978, as conditioned its grant of defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the action for plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a complaint, upon plaintiffs failure to serve a complaint within a stated time. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and the motion is granted unconditionally. More than 73 months elapsed between the time of service of the notice of appearance and demand for the complaint and the making of the motion to dismiss. In the absence of opposition to the motion, an excuse for the delay and an affidavit of merits, the failure to dismiss the action unconditionally was an improvident exercise of discretion (see Marks v Levine, 45 AD2d 715). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

— In an automobile negligence action, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 18, 1978, as conditioned its grant of defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the action for plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a complaint, upon plaintiffs failure to serve a complaint within a stated time. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and the motion is granted unconditionally. More than 73 months elapsed between the time of service of the notice of appearance and demand for the complaint and the making of the motion to dismiss. In the absence of opposition to the motion, an excuse for the delay and an affidavit of merits, the failure to dismiss the action unconditionally was an improvident exercise of discretion (see Marks v Levine, 45 AD2d 715). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 633, 416 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/postell-v-zirulnik-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack