Reecie of London, Ltd. v. Holt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reecie of London, Ltd. v. Holt

20 A.D.2d 631, 246 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4521

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 631 (Reecie of London, Ltd. v. Holt) 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

Reecie of London, Ltd. v. Holt, 20 A.D.2d 631, 246 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on May 7,1963, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute in an action against partners of a brokerage house for damages allegedly caused by misrepresentation in connection with disposing of, holding or acquiring securities, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-respondents. Whether or not delay in prosecution is unreasonable depends upon the nature of the case, the degree of merit in the case and the particular difficulties in going forward with the ease. If the delay in prosecution is unreasonable, the nature of the action does not preclude dismissal therefor. (See Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Yalente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered on May 7,1963, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute in an action against partners of a brokerage house for damages allegedly caused by misrepresentation in connection with disposing of, holding or acquiring securities, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-respondents. Whether or not delay in prosecution is unreasonable depends upon the nature of the case, the degree of merit in the case and the particular difficulties in going forward with the ease. If the delay in prosecution is unreasonable, the nature of the action does not preclude dismissal therefor. (See Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Yalente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 631, 246 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reecie-of-london-ltd-v-holt-nyappdiv-1964.