Rodriguez v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Martinez

20 A.D.2d 632, 246 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4484

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 632 (Rodriguez v. Martinez) 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

Rodriguez v. Martinez, 20 A.D.2d 632, 246 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered March 22, 1963, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion to dismiss [633]*633for failure to prosecute granted, with $10 costs. In alleged explanation of a delay of 14 months in noticing this action for trial, the plaintiffs give as excuses an alleged difficulty in obtaining from the hospital information claimed to be needed to prepare a proper bill of particulars and the misplacing of the file in the dead files in their attorney’s office. These excuses are unacceptable. (See Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered March 22, 1963, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion to dismiss [633]*633for failure to prosecute granted, with $10 costs. In alleged explanation of a delay of 14 months in noticing this action for trial, the plaintiffs give as excuses an alleged difficulty in obtaining from the hospital information claimed to be needed to prepare a proper bill of particulars and the misplacing of the file in the dead files in their attorney’s office. These excuses are unacceptable. (See Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 632, 246 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-martinez-nyappdiv-1964.