Presti v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Presti v. City of New York

19 A.D.2d 623, 241 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3668

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

DecidedJune 3, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 623 (Presti 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

Presti v. City of New York, 19 A.D.2d 623, 241 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 25, 1962, which denied her motion for “reconsideration and reargument” of her prior motion (theretofore reargued and denied) to vacate the dismissal of the action by reason of her default in appearance on a Pre-Trial Calendar [624]*624Call, and to restore the action to the Trial Term Calendar of the court. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the order is appealable (Acosta v. Miller Transp. Co., 276 App. Div. 1005); and it was within the power of Special Term to pass on the merits of the plaintiff’s application (Sanick v. Schauder, 15 A D 2d 801). However, we find no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial of the motions. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 25, 1962, which denied her motion for “reconsideration and reargument” of her prior motion (theretofore reargued and denied) to vacate the dismissal of the action by reason of her default in appearance on a Pre-Trial Calendar [624]*624Call, and to restore the action to the Trial Term Calendar of the court. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the order is appealable (Acosta v. Miller Transp. Co., 276 App. Div. 1005); and it was within the power of Special Term to pass on the merits of the plaintiff’s application (Sanick v. Schauder, 15 A D 2d 801). However, we find no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial of the motions. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 623, 241 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/presti-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1963.