Reese v. McDaniel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reese v. McDaniel

224 A.D.2d 329, 638 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1267

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 329 (Reese v. McDaniel) 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

Reese v. McDaniel, 224 A.D.2d 329, 638 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered December 30, 1994, which, insofar as appeal-able, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew prior orders, same court and Justice, dismissing the complaint as against defendants-respondents for want of prosecution and denying a first motion to renew such dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s excuse for failing to comply with defendants’ 90-day demand and then for failing to offer an excuse for such noncompliance on his first motion to renew or reargue — that he was incarcerated at all relevant times and did not want to reveal that fact for fear of prejudicing his position in settlement negotiations — is of dubious validity with respect to the original motion to dismiss and of no validity with respect to plaintiff’s first motion to renew. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered December 30, 1994, which, insofar as appeal-able, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew prior orders, same court and Justice, dismissing the complaint as against defendants-respondents for want of prosecution and denying a first motion to renew such dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s excuse for failing to comply with defendants’ 90-day demand and then for failing to offer an excuse for such noncompliance on his first motion to renew or reargue — that he was incarcerated at all relevant times and did not want to reveal that fact for fear of prejudicing his position in settlement negotiations — is of dubious validity with respect to the original motion to dismiss and of no validity with respect to plaintiff’s first motion to renew. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 329, 638 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-mcdaniel-nyappdiv-1996.