Troisi v. Praver Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Troisi v. Praver Associates

26 A.D.2d 945, 275 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3114

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 945 (Troisi v. Praver Associates) 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

Troisi v. Praver Associates, 26 A.D.2d 945, 275 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Underhill Construction Corp. appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 31, 1966, which denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]), to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve a complaint. Order reversed, without costs; defendant Under-hill’s motion granted; cross motion denied; and action dismissed, without costs. Under the circumstances disclosed in this record, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion to dismiss the action and to grant the cross motion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, 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 personal injuries, defendant Underhill Construction Corp. appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 31, 1966, which denied its motion, pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]), to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to serve a complaint. Order reversed, without costs; defendant Under-hill’s motion granted; cross motion denied; and action dismissed, without costs. Under the circumstances disclosed in this record, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion to dismiss the action and to grant the cross motion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 945, 275 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troisi-v-praver-associates-nyappdiv-1966.