Segal v. Purofied Down Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Segal v. Purofied Down Products Corp.

15 A.D.2d 902, 225 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10868

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 902 (Segal v. Purofied Down Products Corp.) 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

Segal v. Purofied Down Products Corp., 15 A.D.2d 902, 225 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action for damages based on an alleged breach of a contract of employment, plaintiff failed to serve and file a note of issue and proceed with the -action, except for the instant motion to perpetuate testimony, for what appears to be about 3% years since the adjournment without date of the examination of defendant commenced in March, 1958. Five years and nine months elapsed between the commencement of this action and the cross motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. On this record plaintiff has failed to explain the unreasonable neglect to prosecute this action. (Gallagher v. Clafington, Inc., 7 A D 2d 627.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

In this action for damages based on an alleged breach of a contract of employment, plaintiff failed to serve and file a note of issue and proceed with the -action, except for the instant motion to perpetuate testimony, for what appears to be about 3% years since the adjournment without date of the examination of defendant commenced in March, 1958. Five years and nine months elapsed between the commencement of this action and the cross motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. On this record plaintiff has failed to explain the unreasonable neglect to prosecute this action. (Gallagher v. Clafington, Inc., 7 A D 2d 627.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 902, 225 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segal-v-purofied-down-products-corp-nyappdiv-1962.