Ruggieri v. Sheridan Beer Distributors Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruggieri v. Sheridan Beer Distributors Inc.

40 A.D.2d 711, 336 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 711 (Ruggieri v. Sheridan Beer Distributors 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

Ruggieri v. Sheridan Beer Distributors Inc., 40 A.D.2d 711, 336 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of services, defendant Sheridan Beer Distributors, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 27, 1971, which denied its motion to dismiss the action as against it on the ground of plaintiffs’ failure to serve a complaint within the time specified in CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]) on condition that plaintiffs’ attorney serve the proposed complaint within 15 days of the date of the order. Order reversed, in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted unconditionally. Forty-eight months elapsed between the time of the service of the notice of appearance and demand for the complaint and the making of the motion to dismiss. In our opinion the failure to dismiss the complaint unconditionally was an improvident exercise of discretion (Bamford v. Kaunitz, 37 A D 2d 682). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of services, defendant Sheridan Beer Distributors, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 27, 1971, which denied its motion to dismiss the action as against it on the ground of plaintiffs’ failure to serve a complaint within the time specified in CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]) on condition that plaintiffs’ attorney serve the proposed complaint within 15 days of the date of the order. Order reversed, in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted unconditionally. Forty-eight months elapsed between the time of the service of the notice of appearance and demand for the complaint and the making of the motion to dismiss. In our opinion the failure to dismiss the complaint unconditionally was an improvident exercise of discretion (Bamford v. Kaunitz, 37 A D 2d 682). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Gulotta and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 711, 336 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruggieri-v-sheridan-beer-distributors-inc-nyappdiv-1972.