Roberts v. New York Post Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. New York Post Corp.

24 A.D.2d 714, 263 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3346

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 714 (Roberts v. New York Post 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

Roberts v. New York Post Corp., 24 A.D.2d 714, 263 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on August 2, 1965, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss libel action for failure to prosecute unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion is granted, with $10 costs. The motion to dismiss was made on general grounds of delay and not because of the failure to notice the action for trial. Consequently, the 45-day notice provision of CPLR 3216 is not applicable (Mulinos v. Coliseum Contr. Corp., 22 A D 2d 163; cf. Brown v. Weissberg, 22 A D 2d 282). The record of this moribund seven-year-old action otherwise requires that it be dismissed (Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25). Fischer v. Pan Amer. World Airways (16 N Y 2d 725) is not in point, because, as made evident by the official headnote, that ease involved only the failure to file a timely note of issue for trial, and the court’s memorandum decision applied the 1964 amendment to CPLR 3216 (L. 1964, ch. 974) retroactively to motions denied prior to the date the amendment became effective. The decision is not necessarily applicable to motions made on broad grounds of general delay (Mulinos v. Coliseum Constr. Corp., supra; Brown v. Weissberg, supra). Concur—• Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Eager JJ.

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

Order entered on August 2, 1965, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss libel action for failure to prosecute unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and the motion is granted, with $10 costs. The motion to dismiss was made on general grounds of delay and not because of the failure to notice the action for trial. Consequently, the 45-day notice provision of CPLR 3216 is not applicable (Mulinos v. Coliseum Contr. Corp., 22 A D 2d 163; cf. Brown v. Weissberg, 22 A D 2d 282). The record of this moribund seven-year-old action otherwise requires that it be dismissed (Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25). Fischer v. Pan Amer. World Airways (16 N Y 2d 725) is not in point, because, as made evident by the official headnote, that ease involved only the failure to file a timely note of issue for trial, and the court’s memorandum decision applied the 1964 amendment to CPLR 3216 (L. 1964, ch. 974) retroactively to motions denied prior to the date the amendment became effective. The decision is not necessarily applicable to motions made on broad grounds of general delay (Mulinos v. Coliseum Constr. Corp., supra; Brown v. Weissberg, supra). Concur—• Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Eager JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 714, 263 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-new-york-post-corp-nyappdiv-1965.