Quick Service Novelty Corp. v. Scharf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quick Service Novelty Corp. v. Scharf

3 A.D.2d 989, 163 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5244

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

DecidedJune 4, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 989 (Quick Service Novelty Corp. v. Scharf) 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

Quick Service Novelty Corp. v. Scharf, 3 A.D.2d 989, 163 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s failure to explain or excuse a delay of 31 months between the time of joinder of issue [990]*990and the serving and filing of a note of issue, and its failure to supply an affidavit of merits, require the dismissal of the action notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff had served and filed the note of issue immediately before the making of the motion to dismiss. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint for lack of prosecution, with costs. Concur —Botein, J. P., Rabin, McNally and Bergan, JJ. [See post, p. 1015.]

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

Plaintiff’s failure to explain or excuse a delay of 31 months between the time of joinder of issue [990]*990and the serving and filing of a note of issue, and its failure to supply an affidavit of merits, require the dismissal of the action notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff had served and filed the note of issue immediately before the making of the motion to dismiss. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint for lack of prosecution, with costs. Concur —Botein, J. P., Rabin, McNally and Bergan, JJ. [See post, p. 1015.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 989, 163 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quick-service-novelty-corp-v-scharf-nyappdiv-1957.