Starkand v. Hartman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Starkand v. Hartman

213 A.D.2d 191, 623 N.Y.S.2d 245

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 191 (Starkand v. Hartman) 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

Starkand v. Hartman, 213 A.D.2d 191, 623 N.Y.S.2d 245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered December 8, 1993, which insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute in view of, inter alia, the dissolution of plaintiffs’ attorney’s original law firm, plaintiffs’ new attorney’s difficulties in obtaining the case file from the original attorney, and defendants’ refusal to cooperate with plaintiffs’ efforts to complete disclosure. We also find that plaintiffs have sufficiently set forth a meritorious cause of action. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered December 8, 1993, which insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute in view of, inter alia, the dissolution of plaintiffs’ attorney’s original law firm, plaintiffs’ new attorney’s difficulties in obtaining the case file from the original attorney, and defendants’ refusal to cooperate with plaintiffs’ efforts to complete disclosure. We also find that plaintiffs have sufficiently set forth a meritorious cause of action. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 191, 623 N.Y.S.2d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starkand-v-hartman-nyappdiv-1995.