Webb v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Webb v. Consolidated Edison Co.

3 A.D.2d 681, 159 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6612

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 681 (Webb v. Consolidated Edison 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

Webb v. Consolidated Edison Co., 3 A.D.2d 681, 159 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., appeals from an order conditionally granting its motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to prosecute, unless a note of issue be served for the next term of court. Although the order appealed from, which is dated January 6, 1956, indicates that no appearance was made and that no papers were filed on behalf of respondent, her brief states that her attorney did appear on the return day of the motion after the calendar had been called. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “granted”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant, with leave to respondent, if she be so advised, to move within 10 days after entry of the order hereon to open her default on the motion to dismiss. Upon the record before us, it may not be said the respondent sustained the burden of justifying the delay. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy 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, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., appeals from an order conditionally granting its motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for failure to prosecute, unless a note of issue be served for the next term of court. Although the order appealed from, which is dated January 6, 1956, indicates that no appearance was made and that no papers were filed on behalf of respondent, her brief states that her attorney did appear on the return day of the motion after the calendar had been called. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph everything following the word “granted”. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant, with leave to respondent, if she be so advised, to move within 10 days after entry of the order hereon to open her default on the motion to dismiss. Upon the record before us, it may not be said the respondent sustained the burden of justifying the delay. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 681, 159 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1957.