Tallman v. William S. Merrell Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tallman v. William S. Merrell Co.

52 A.D.2d 1080, 384 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13009

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

DecidedMay 28, 1976

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 1080 (Tallman v. William S. Merrell Co.) 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

Tallman v. William S. Merrell Co., 52 A.D.2d 1080, 384 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion denied; cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: This case has virtually the same history as Miner v Merrell Co. (52 AD2d 1080). On October 28,1971 we affirmed an order which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order (37 AD2d 923). Despite that determination, plaintiff permitted the case to remain dormant on the general docket for four more years before moving to restore it for trial. The courts cannot tolerate such indifference to the need for expeditious prosecution of actions (see Miner v Merrell Co., supra). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court —restore case to calendar.) Present—Moule, J. P., Mahoney, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion denied; cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: This case has virtually the same history as Miner v Merrell Co. (52 AD2d 1080). On October 28,1971 we affirmed an order which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order (37 AD2d 923). Despite that determination, plaintiff permitted the case to remain dormant on the general docket for four more years before moving to restore it for trial. The courts cannot tolerate such indifference to the need for expeditious prosecution of actions (see Miner v Merrell Co., supra). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court —restore case to calendar.) Present—Moule, J. P., Mahoney, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 1080, 384 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tallman-v-william-s-merrell-co-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack