Quinones v. Lipski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quinones v. Lipski

37 A.D.2d 765, 324 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3443

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 765 (Quinones v. Lipski) 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

Quinones v. Lipski, 37 A.D.2d 765, 324 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 19, 1971, reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, the motion to vacate dismissal of the action denied and the vacated judgment reinstated. A motion to vacate dismissal was originally denied, but without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers. However, the papers submitted on renewal are of no greater weight than the orginal: the affidavit of merit speaks in eonclusory terms without specification of causal connection, the claim of incorrect information received from a lawyers’ service is not substantiated, and the long delay in renewing the motion is not satisfactorily explained (see Burke v. City of New York, 18 A D 2d 898). Concur—Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman and McNally, JJ.; Murphy, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm on the opinion of Helman, J., at Special Term.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 19, 1971, reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, the motion to vacate dismissal of the action denied and the vacated judgment reinstated. A motion to vacate dismissal was originally denied, but without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers. However, the papers submitted on renewal are of no greater weight than the orginal: the affidavit of merit speaks in eonclusory terms without specification of causal connection, the claim of incorrect information received from a lawyers’ service is not substantiated, and the long delay in renewing the motion is not satisfactorily explained (see Burke v. City of New York, 18 A D 2d 898). Concur—Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman and McNally, JJ.; Murphy, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm on the opinion of Helman, J., at Special Term.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 765, 324 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinones-v-lipski-nyappdiv-1971.