Valentin v. Ina Holding Corp.

20 A.D.2d 525, 245 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2755
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 10, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 525 (Valentin v. Ina Holding 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
Valentin v. Ina Holding Corp., 20 A.D.2d 525, 245 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

—■ Order, entered on September 25, 1963, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss personal injury negligence action for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The accident occurred July 30, 1960. Action was begun October 18,1960 and issue was joined November 2, 1960. Nothing has been done since the joinder of issue except plaintiffs filed a note of issue and statement of readiness on July 19,1963, a few days before the making of the motion to dismiss the action. Plaintiffs seek recovery in gross of $425,000 for an alleged injury to the wife’s eye sustained when glass dust from a broken window entered her eye as she closed the window. The alleged excuse for the delay is that plaintiffs’ lawyer was HI for a six-month [526]*526period. The affidavit of merits stated generally that the kitchen window in plaintiffs’ apartment was cracked, that notice had been given to the landlord prior to the accident, and that the injuries were sustained while closing the window. While, eoncededly, plaintiff wife sustained a corneal ulcer, the experts disagree as to the cause. In the meantime, defendant’s two medical experts have died. The delay for almost three years is inordinate, and the lawyer’s illness for only six months of that time is therefore no excuse at all. The filing of the late note of issue does not cancel years of delay (see Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Bergan, JJ.

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

Related

Scott v. Columbia Memorial Hospital
134 A.D.2d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Berman v. Brunswick Hospital Center
94 A.D.2d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 A.D.2d 525, 245 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valentin-v-ina-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1963.