Rafkin v. Perma Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rafkin v. Perma Realty Corp.

37 A.D.2d 599, 323 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3859

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

DecidedJune 14, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 599 (Rafkin v. Perma Realty Corp.) 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

Rafkin v. Perma Realty Corp., 37 A.D.2d 599, 323 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 7, 1970, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action -to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. The case was dismissed on May 25, 1963, after a year had passed without plaintiff's filing a new note of issue. Admittedly, plaintiff’s former attorney became aware of the dismissal in 1965 and plaintiff became aware of it in 1968. The present motion was not made until February, 1970. In our opinion, the granting of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 7, 1970, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action -to the Trial Calendar. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. The case was dismissed on May 25, 1963, after a year had passed without plaintiff's filing a new note of issue. Admittedly, plaintiff’s former attorney became aware of the dismissal in 1965 and plaintiff became aware of it in 1968. The present motion was not made until February, 1970. In our opinion, the granting of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 599, 323 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rafkin-v-perma-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1971.