Przyjemski v. Surowaniec

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Przyjemski v. Surowaniec

221 A.D.2d 326, 633 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11243

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 326 (Przyjemski v. Surowaniec) 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

Przyjemski v. Surowaniec, 221 A.D.2d 326, 633 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover [327]*327damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated 'May 12, 1994, which denied his motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the strong policy favoring disposition of actions on the merits and the clear intention of the plaintiffs not to abandon the action, the relatively brief delay on their part in properly responding to the 90-day notice does not warrant the drastic remedy of dismissal, especially where, as here, the defendant cannot show prejudice (see, Conner v Brasserie, Inc., 136 AD2d 481; JMS Enters, v Belfield, 114 AD2d 886). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover [327]*327damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated 'May 12, 1994, which denied his motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the strong policy favoring disposition of actions on the merits and the clear intention of the plaintiffs not to abandon the action, the relatively brief delay on their part in properly responding to the 90-day notice does not warrant the drastic remedy of dismissal, especially where, as here, the defendant cannot show prejudice (see, Conner v Brasserie, Inc., 136 AD2d 481; JMS Enters, v Belfield, 114 AD2d 886). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 326, 633 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/przyjemski-v-surowaniec-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack