Stazio v. City of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stazio v. City of Poughkeepsie

191 A.D.2d 421, 596 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1809

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 421 (Stazio v. City of Poughkeepsie) 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

Stazio v. City of Poughkeepsie, 191 A.D.2d 421, 596 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated October 4, 1990, which, upon an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint. The [422]*422plaintiffs notice of appeal from an order dated September 25, 1990, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff failed to file a note of issue within 90 days following the defendant’s demand, failed to move for an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, and failed to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his delay or a good and meritorious cause of action, the court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute (see, CPLR 3216; Carte v Segall, 134 AD2d 397). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

—In action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated October 4, 1990, which, upon an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint. The [422]*422plaintiffs notice of appeal from an order dated September 25, 1990, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff failed to file a note of issue within 90 days following the defendant’s demand, failed to move for an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, and failed to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his delay or a good and meritorious cause of action, the court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute (see, CPLR 3216; Carte v Segall, 134 AD2d 397). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 421, 596 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stazio-v-city-of-poughkeepsie-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack