Smith v. Mentzinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Mentzinger

18 A.D.2d 696, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6375

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 696 (Smith v. Mentzinger) 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

Smith v. Mentzinger, 18 A.D.2d 696, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for injury to person and property, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 1, 1961 as imposed a condition upon the granting of their motion, pursuant to rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution; the condition being that the motion is granted “ unless plaintiff moves and continues to move expeditiously in the prosecution of this action.” Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No question was raised by either party as to the ambiguous wording of the dispositive conditional provision in the order. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for injury to person and property, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 1, 1961 as imposed a condition upon the granting of their motion, pursuant to rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution; the condition being that the motion is granted “ unless plaintiff moves and continues to move expeditiously in the prosecution of this action.” Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No question was raised by either party as to the ambiguous wording of the dispositive conditional provision in the order. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 696, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-mentzinger-nyappdiv-1962.