Schwartz v. Cuozzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Cuozzo

46 A.D.2d 667, 361 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 667 (Schwartz v. Cuozzo) 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

Schwartz v. Cuozzo, 46 A.D.2d 667, 361 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In this negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, defendants Cuozzo and Cornelia appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 14, 1974, which granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, upon certain conditions, and to permit the parties to conduct or complete pretrial examinations. Also under review is an order of the same court, dated April 22, 1974, which, inter alia, modified said earlier order (1) as to costs and (2) so as to fix a time for pretrial examinations. Orders affirmed, without costs. The trial of this long-overdue action is directed to proceed forthwith. Latham, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., [668]*668concur; Martuscello, Acting P. J., and Christ, J., dissent and vote to reverse the orders, deny plaintiff’s motion and reinstate the previous dismissal of the action, on the ground that it was an abuse of discretion by Special Term to grant plaintiff’s motion.

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

In this negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, defendants Cuozzo and Cornelia appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 14, 1974, which granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, upon certain conditions, and to permit the parties to conduct or complete pretrial examinations. Also under review is an order of the same court, dated April 22, 1974, which, inter alia, modified said earlier order (1) as to costs and (2) so as to fix a time for pretrial examinations. Orders affirmed, without costs. The trial of this long-overdue action is directed to proceed forthwith. Latham, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., [668]*668concur; Martuscello, Acting P. J., and Christ, J., dissent and vote to reverse the orders, deny plaintiff’s motion and reinstate the previous dismissal of the action, on the ground that it was an abuse of discretion by Special Term to grant plaintiff’s motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 667, 361 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-cuozzo-nyappdiv-1974.