Waldman v. Cedar Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waldman v. Cedar Management Corp.

11 A.D.2d 646, 201 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9420

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

DecidedJune 7, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 646 (Waldman v. Cedar Management 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

Waldman v. Cedar Management Corp., 11 A.D.2d 646, 201 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, so as to dismiss the complaint unconditionally, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and judgment directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs. Counsel’s explanation of the three years and nine-months’ delay in bringing the ease on for trial due to the failure of trial counsel to act diligently does not satisfy the requirements of reasonableness called for under section 181 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice (Moshman v. City of New York, 3 A D 2d 825; Mist v. 234 East 33rd Corp., 4 A D 2d 867; Hardware Mat. Cas. Go. v. Rosenberg, 3 A D 2d 988; Hyde S' Sons v. Roller Derby Skate Co., 1 A D 2d 942; Davis v. Cunará Steamship Co., 284 App. Div. .1036; Cooper v. Schnabolk, 283 App. Div. 937). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, so as to dismiss the complaint unconditionally, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and judgment directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs. Counsel’s explanation of the three years and nine-months’ delay in bringing the ease on for trial due to the failure of trial counsel to act diligently does not satisfy the requirements of reasonableness called for under section 181 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice (Moshman v. City of New York, 3 A D 2d 825; Mist v. 234 East 33rd Corp., 4 A D 2d 867; Hardware Mat. Cas. Go. v. Rosenberg, 3 A D 2d 988; Hyde S' Sons v. Roller Derby Skate Co., 1 A D 2d 942; Davis v. Cunará Steamship Co., 284 App. Div. .1036; Cooper v. Schnabolk, 283 App. Div. 937). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 646, 201 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldman-v-cedar-management-corp-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack