Vittorino v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vittorino v. City of New York

22 A.D.2d 883, 254 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2525

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.2d 883 (Vittorino v. City of New York) 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

Vittorino v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 883, 254 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered October 22, 1964, denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a dismissal of the complaint for failure to proceed to trial, unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts, and, in the exercise of discretion, with $75 costs and disbursements to appellants, the motion to vacate the dismissal is granted, and the action is ordered restored to the Ready Personal Injury Jury Calendar, Supreme Court, Bronx County. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to dismiss the complaint when counsel for plaintiffs sought an adjournment of the trial to the next court day upon the grounds of illness. On the record, there is no basis for finding that the illness was feigned. In the circumstances, an adjournment of the cause was properly indicated. In vacating the dismissal, we in no way indicate our views as to the ultimate merit of plaintiffs’ cause. The resolution of that question must await a trial. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered October 22, 1964, denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a dismissal of the complaint for failure to proceed to trial, unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts, and, in the exercise of discretion, with $75 costs and disbursements to appellants, the motion to vacate the dismissal is granted, and the action is ordered restored to the Ready Personal Injury Jury Calendar, Supreme Court, Bronx County. It was an improvident exercise of discretion to dismiss the complaint when counsel for plaintiffs sought an adjournment of the trial to the next court day upon the grounds of illness. On the record, there is no basis for finding that the illness was feigned. In the circumstances, an adjournment of the cause was properly indicated. In vacating the dismissal, we in no way indicate our views as to the ultimate merit of plaintiffs’ cause. The resolution of that question must await a trial. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 883, 254 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vittorino-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack