Topp v. Casco Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Topp v. Casco Products Corp.

8 A.D.2d 727, 187 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8826

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

DecidedMay 4, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 727 (Topp v. Casco Products Corp.) 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

Topp v. Casco Products Corp., 8 A.D.2d 727, 187 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order which denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for respondent’s unreasonable neglect to prosecute the action. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Respondent failed to present facts showing any reasonable excuse for his delay of more than three years after joinder of issue in bringing the cause on for trial, or to make an adequate, if any, showing of merits. The motion therefore should have been granted in the exercise of discretion even though respondent filed and served a note of issue after the notice of motion to dismiss had been served. (Brassner Mfg. Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., 1 A D 2d 840 and cases cited therein.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order which denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for respondent’s unreasonable neglect to prosecute the action. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Respondent failed to present facts showing any reasonable excuse for his delay of more than three years after joinder of issue in bringing the cause on for trial, or to make an adequate, if any, showing of merits. The motion therefore should have been granted in the exercise of discretion even though respondent filed and served a note of issue after the notice of motion to dismiss had been served. (Brassner Mfg. Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., 1 A D 2d 840 and cases cited therein.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 727, 187 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/topp-v-casco-products-corp-nyappdiv-1959.