Rojas v. Prudential Grace Lines, Inc.

86 A.D.2d 890, 450 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15547

This text of 86 A.D.2d 890 (Rojas v. Prudential Grace Lines, Inc.) 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
Rojas v. Prudential Grace Lines, Inc., 86 A.D.2d 890, 450 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

In a personal injury action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated April 13, 1981, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss the complaint granted. Special Term abused its discretion in denying the motion in view of the fact that the [891]*891record shows no more than law office failure (see Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; Crucilla v Howe Richardson Scale Co., 80 AD2d 575). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Barasch v. Micucci
404 N.E.2d 1275 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Crucilla v. Howe Richardson Scale Co.
80 A.D.2d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 A.D.2d 890, 450 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rojas-v-prudential-grace-lines-inc-nyappdiv-1982.