Shapiro v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shapiro v. City of New York

21 A.D.2d 652, 249 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810

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

DecidedMay 14, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 652 (Shapiro v. City of New York) 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

Shapiro v. City of New York, 21 A.D.2d 652, 249 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on or about December 20, 1963, denying the motions of defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, unanimously reversed, on law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motions to dismiss the complaint granted, with $10 costs. In this 1959 action for conspiracy, unlawful competition, and patent infringement, relating to events between 1934 and 1956, plaintiff fails to justify sufficiently the inordinate delay or to establish, except by way of bald conclusions, that his cause of action has adequate merit (see Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on or about December 20, 1963, denying the motions of defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, unanimously reversed, on law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motions to dismiss the complaint granted, with $10 costs. In this 1959 action for conspiracy, unlawful competition, and patent infringement, relating to events between 1934 and 1956, plaintiff fails to justify sufficiently the inordinate delay or to establish, except by way of bald conclusions, that his cause of action has adequate merit (see Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 652, 249 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shapiro-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1964.