Rogoff v. Scheinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rogoff v. Scheinberg

22 A.D.2d 679, 253 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2885

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.2d 679 (Rogoff v. Scheinberg) 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

Rogoff v. Scheinberg, 22 A.D.2d 679, 253 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, entered February 27, 1964, denying defendants’ cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action for an accounting, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to CPLR 3216, unanimously affirmed, without costs to any party. The record contains enough to establish that for a substantial period and immediately prior to the making of the cross motion, the action was being actively prosecuted. Under the circumstances there was no prima facie showing of current delay to warrant dismissal, and for that reason too it was not incumbent upon plaintiff to supply an affidavit of merits (Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 32). Costs are not awarded because plaintiff-respondent improperly included matter in his brief not contained in the record. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Motion for an order directing the withdrawal of respondent’s brief dismissed having become academic by virtue of the decision rendered herewith. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Yalente and McNally, JJ.

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

— Order, entered February 27, 1964, denying defendants’ cross motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action for an accounting, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to CPLR 3216, unanimously affirmed, without costs to any party. The record contains enough to establish that for a substantial period and immediately prior to the making of the cross motion, the action was being actively prosecuted. Under the circumstances there was no prima facie showing of current delay to warrant dismissal, and for that reason too it was not incumbent upon plaintiff to supply an affidavit of merits (Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 32). Costs are not awarded because plaintiff-respondent improperly included matter in his brief not contained in the record. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Motion for an order directing the withdrawal of respondent’s brief dismissed having become academic by virtue of the decision rendered herewith. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Yalente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 679, 253 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogoff-v-scheinberg-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack