Steen v. New Deal Delivery Service, Inc.
427 N.E.2d 770, 54 N.Y.2d 796, 443 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2714
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
On summary consideration, order affirmed, with costs. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the Appellate [798]*798Division abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b j). As we held in Barasch v Micucci (49 NY2d 594, 600-601), it would have constituted an abuse of discretion to have failed to dismiss.
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Steen v. New Deal Delivery Service, Inc., 427 N.E.2d 770, 54 N.Y.2d 796, 443 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2714 (N.Y. 1981).
427 N.E.2d 770 (Steen v. New Deal Delivery Service, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Manhattan King David Restaurant, Inc. v. Nathanson
269 A.D.2d 297 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Migliaccio v. Phoenix Insurance
91 A.D.2d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Eaton v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, Inc.
438 N.E.2d 1119 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)