Scivetti v. Tompkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scivetti v. Tompkins

248 A.D. 827, 289 N.Y.S. 190

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 827 (Scivetti v. Tompkins) 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

Scivetti v. Tompkins, 248 A.D. 827, 289 N.Y.S. 190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained, as.alleged, through defendant’s negligence, order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution modified by inserting therein a provision for the payment of ten dollars costs by the plaintiffs to the defendant or to his attorney. As so modified, the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. There was a period of approximately seven months between joinder of issue in this action and April 23, 1936, the date on which defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. For this violation of rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, which limits the delay to six months, plaintiffs have offered neither excuse nor explanation. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Johnston, JJ., concur; Carswell and Davis, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm without modification.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained, as.alleged, through defendant’s negligence, order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution modified by inserting therein a provision for the payment of ten dollars costs by the plaintiffs to the defendant or to his attorney. As so modified, the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant. There was a period of approximately seven months between joinder of issue in this action and April 23, 1936, the date on which defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. For this violation of rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, which limits the delay to six months, plaintiffs have offered neither excuse nor explanation. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Johnston, JJ., concur; Carswell and Davis, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm without modification.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 827, 289 N.Y.S. 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scivetti-v-tompkins-nyappdiv-1936.