Tapis v. Blanton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tapis v. Blanton

241 A.D. 618, 269 N.Y.S. 910

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D. 618 (Tapis v. Blanton) 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

Tapis v. Blanton, 241 A.D. 618, 269 N.Y.S. 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint modified by striking therefrom the words “ unless plaintiff forthwith notices the ease for the November term and files his note of issue,” and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. This action has been at issue since the 3d day of August, 1929. A delay of more than four years in noticing the case for trial is plainly unreasonable unless such delay is satisfactorily excused. Even if the excuse here presented were sufficient in itself, that is, that the plaintiff was unable to pay the fee to have the cause of action placed upon the Trial Term calendar, there is no proof of facts upon which that excuse can be predicated. The affidavit submitted in opposition is clearly insufficient. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint modified by striking therefrom the words “ unless plaintiff forthwith notices the ease for the November term and files his note of issue,” and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. This action has been at issue since the 3d day of August, 1929. A delay of more than four years in noticing the case for trial is plainly unreasonable unless such delay is satisfactorily excused. Even if the excuse here presented were sufficient in itself, that is, that the plaintiff was unable to pay the fee to have the cause of action placed upon the Trial Term calendar, there is no proof of facts upon which that excuse can be predicated. The affidavit submitted in opposition is clearly insufficient. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 618, 269 N.Y.S. 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tapis-v-blanton-nyappdiv-1934.