Tortorici v. United States Gypsum Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tortorici v. United States Gypsum Co.

3 A.D.2d 945, 163 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5319

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

DecidedMay 27, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 945 (Tortorici v. United States Gypsum 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

Tortorici v. United States Gypsum Co., 3 A.D.2d 945, 163 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries in which, by a prior order, the complaint had been dismissed for failure to prosecute, the appeal is from an order which, on reargument, denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and restored the action to the Trial Term calendar. Order affirmed, without costs. The delay was occasioned by the respondent’s departure from the State without maintaining contact with his attorney and by his ignorance of the fact that his failure to maintain such contact rendered it impossible to process the ease for the purpose of placing the ease upon the calendar. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, 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 in which, by a prior order, the complaint had been dismissed for failure to prosecute, the appeal is from an order which, on reargument, denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and restored the action to the Trial Term calendar. Order affirmed, without costs. The delay was occasioned by the respondent’s departure from the State without maintaining contact with his attorney and by his ignorance of the fact that his failure to maintain such contact rendered it impossible to process the ease for the purpose of placing the ease upon the calendar. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 945, 163 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tortorici-v-united-states-gypsum-co-nyappdiv-1957.