Sheridan v. Geller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheridan v. Geller

283 A.D. 1100, 132 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6427

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

DecidedJune 21, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 1100 (Sheridan v. Geller) 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

Sheridan v. Geller, 283 A.D. 1100, 132 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from the conditional part of an order granting her motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute unless plaintiff serves and files a note of issue within ten days. Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for determination upon the present record and (a) upon such supplemental affidavit as plaintiff may submit setting forth the additional facts which he has since discovered and which he now claims do adequately show that a delay of twenty-eight months was excusable and was not due to any fault or neglect of either himself or his attorney, and (b) upon such affidavit as defendant may submit in reply. Nolan, P. J., Adel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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, defendant appeals from the conditional part of an order granting her motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute unless plaintiff serves and files a note of issue within ten days. Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for determination upon the present record and (a) upon such supplemental affidavit as plaintiff may submit setting forth the additional facts which he has since discovered and which he now claims do adequately show that a delay of twenty-eight months was excusable and was not due to any fault or neglect of either himself or his attorney, and (b) upon such affidavit as defendant may submit in reply. Nolan, P. J., Adel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1100, 132 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheridan-v-geller-nyappdiv-1954.