Renzo v. Kelton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Renzo v. Kelton

10 A.D.2d 859, 199 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10837

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

DecidedApril 4, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 859 (Renzo v. Kelton) 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

Renzo v. Kelton, 10 A.D.2d 859, 199 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries and by her father for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeals are (1) from an order entered September 22, 1959 granting respondents’ motion to vacate their default in the service of a bill of particulars, and (2) from an order entered October 7, 1959 vacating the dismissal of the action and restoring it to the trial calendar, on respondents’ motion, upon certain conditions. Orders reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and motions denied. Respondents did not move to vacate their default in serving a bill of particulars until 47 months after the service of an order of preclusion. Nor did they move to restore the action to the calendar until 8 months after the complaint had been dismissed pursuant to rule 302 of the Rules of Civil Practice. No reasonable excuse has been offered for the delays. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries and by her father for medical expenses and loss of services, the appeals are (1) from an order entered September 22, 1959 granting respondents’ motion to vacate their default in the service of a bill of particulars, and (2) from an order entered October 7, 1959 vacating the dismissal of the action and restoring it to the trial calendar, on respondents’ motion, upon certain conditions. Orders reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and motions denied. Respondents did not move to vacate their default in serving a bill of particulars until 47 months after the service of an order of preclusion. Nor did they move to restore the action to the calendar until 8 months after the complaint had been dismissed pursuant to rule 302 of the Rules of Civil Practice. No reasonable excuse has been offered for the delays. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 859, 199 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renzo-v-kelton-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack