Rassner v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rassner v. City of New York

22 A.D.2d 670, 253 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 670 (Rassner 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

Rassner v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 670, 253 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, entered on February 14, 1964, granting motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the. facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. In this action plaintiff claims that he fell in the street because of the negligent manner in which a defective condition was left guarded. Plaintiff received no co-operation and was actually hindered by the city in his efforts to discover the parties responsible for creating the condition. Since service of the city’s answer plaintiff has been almost continuously occupied by his pretrial activities and those of the various defendants who have been brought into the action by the plaintiff and the city. Those activities rebut any inference arising merely from the time elapsed that plaintiff intended to or did abandon the action. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

— Order, entered on February 14, 1964, granting motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the. facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. In this action plaintiff claims that he fell in the street because of the negligent manner in which a defective condition was left guarded. Plaintiff received no co-operation and was actually hindered by the city in his efforts to discover the parties responsible for creating the condition. Since service of the city’s answer plaintiff has been almost continuously occupied by his pretrial activities and those of the various defendants who have been brought into the action by the plaintiff and the city. Those activities rebut any inference arising merely from the time elapsed that plaintiff intended to or did abandon the action. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 670, 253 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rassner-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1964.