Rose v. Pasqua

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rose v. Pasqua

88 A.D.2d 534, 450 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16666

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

DecidedMay 13, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 534 (Rose v. Pasqua) 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

Rose v. Pasqua, 88 A.D.2d 534, 450 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Cotton, J.) entered December 11, 1981, which denied the motion by defendant to dismiss the action for want of prosecution, while imposing costs of $500 on plaintiff’s attorney, unanimously modified, on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of increasing the costs imposed upon plaintiff’s attorney to the sum of $2,500, said sum to be payable within 30 days of the date of this court’s order, and otherwise affirmed, with costs of this appeal payable to defendant. In the event that plaintiff’s attorney fails to timely pay the sum of $2,500 to defendant, the order appealed from is reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion to dismiss the action for want of prosecution is granted, with costs to defendant. After review of the record, we are of the view that the increase in costs is warranted. Concur — Carro, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Bloom and Asch, JJ.

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

— Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Cotton, J.) entered December 11, 1981, which denied the motion by defendant to dismiss the action for want of prosecution, while imposing costs of $500 on plaintiff’s attorney, unanimously modified, on the law and facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of increasing the costs imposed upon plaintiff’s attorney to the sum of $2,500, said sum to be payable within 30 days of the date of this court’s order, and otherwise affirmed, with costs of this appeal payable to defendant. In the event that plaintiff’s attorney fails to timely pay the sum of $2,500 to defendant, the order appealed from is reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion to dismiss the action for want of prosecution is granted, with costs to defendant. After review of the record, we are of the view that the increase in costs is warranted. Concur — Carro, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Bloom and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 534, 450 N.Y.S.2d 390, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-pasqua-nyappdiv-1982.