Siegel v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegel v. City of New York

16 A.D.2d 679, 227 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10303

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

DecidedApril 16, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 679 (Siegel 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

Siegel v. City of New York, 16 A.D.2d 679, 227 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, each defendant appeals as follows from a separate order of the Supreme Court, Kings County: (1) Defendant Misboff appeals from an order, dated October 11, 1961, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs’ lack of prosecution, on condition that plaintiffs notice the ease for trial for the December 1961 Term; (2) defendant City of New York appeals from an order dated October 17, 1961, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to open their default upon a prior motion by the defendant city to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs’ lack of prosecution, and which denied the city’s said motion on condition that plaintiffs notice the ease for trial for the December 1961 Term. Orders reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements to each defendant; and the motion of each defendant to dismiss the complaint is granted. Plaintiffs failed adequately to explain or show reasonable excuse for the delay of three years and nine [680]*680months since joinder of issue in bringing the cause on for trial. Plaintiffs also failed to make a sufficient showing of merits. Under such circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion not to grant unconditionally the respective motions to dismiss (Topp v. Casco Prods. Corp., 8 A D 2d 727, appeal dismissed 7 N Y 2d 742; Lange v. Bagish, 285 App. Div. 833). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, 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, medical expenses and loss of services, each defendant appeals as follows from a separate order of the Supreme Court, Kings County: (1) Defendant Misboff appeals from an order, dated October 11, 1961, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs’ lack of prosecution, on condition that plaintiffs notice the ease for trial for the December 1961 Term; (2) defendant City of New York appeals from an order dated October 17, 1961, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to open their default upon a prior motion by the defendant city to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs’ lack of prosecution, and which denied the city’s said motion on condition that plaintiffs notice the ease for trial for the December 1961 Term. Orders reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements to each defendant; and the motion of each defendant to dismiss the complaint is granted. Plaintiffs failed adequately to explain or show reasonable excuse for the delay of three years and nine [680]*680months since joinder of issue in bringing the cause on for trial. Plaintiffs also failed to make a sufficient showing of merits. Under such circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion not to grant unconditionally the respective motions to dismiss (Topp v. Casco Prods. Corp., 8 A D 2d 727, appeal dismissed 7 N Y 2d 742; Lange v. Bagish, 285 App. Div. 833). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 679, 227 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack