Thalassinos v. Brutsche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thalassinos v. Brutsche

17 A.D.2d 835, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7859

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 835 (Thalassinos v. Brutsche) 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

Thalassinos v. Brutsche, 17 A.D.2d 835, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for injury to person and property, defendant Brutsche appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 1, 1961, which denied his motion [836]*836to dismiss the complaint as to him for lack of prosecution (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 156). Such denial was conditioned upon the service and filing by plaintiff of a note of issue for a subsequent term of the court. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of merit. The moving affidavit by counsel for said defendant Brutsehe made no claim of prejudice by reason of the delay. Moreover, it appears the motion to dismiss was not made until after the running of the Statute of Limitations. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for injury to person and property, defendant Brutsche appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 1, 1961, which denied his motion [836]*836to dismiss the complaint as to him for lack of prosecution (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 156). Such denial was conditioned upon the service and filing by plaintiff of a note of issue for a subsequent term of the court. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of merit. The moving affidavit by counsel for said defendant Brutsehe made no claim of prejudice by reason of the delay. Moreover, it appears the motion to dismiss was not made until after the running of the Statute of Limitations. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 835, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thalassinos-v-brutsche-nyappdiv-1962.