Weeks v. Jankowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weeks v. Jankowitz

23 A.D.2d 549, 256 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4913

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 549 (Weeks v. Jankowitz) 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

Weeks v. Jankowitz, 23 A.D.2d 549, 256 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered November 24, 1964, denying defendant’s motion under CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 caste and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. In this personal injury negligence action the only explanation for the delay of over four-and-a-half years in prosecuting this action is that the file in the office of plaintiff’s attorney had been mislaid. Such an excuse is not sufficient (Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 29). The affidavit of the infant plaintiff’s mother is conelusory in form and gives no evidentiary facts showing that defendant was negligent. It does not sufficiently show that plaintiffs have a meritorious cause of action (Sortino v. Fisher, supra, pp. 31-32). Having decided this motion in favor [550]*550of defendant by order dated May 27, 1964, it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to vacate that order and to decide this motion on the basis of the amendment to CPLR 3216 effective September 1, 1964 {Teto v. Fleet Chevrolet Corp., 22 A D 2d 672). Moreover, even if this amendment to CPLR 3216 were applicable, the motion to dismiss should be granted, as it is not founded on plaintiff’s failure to file a note of issue {Mulinos v. Coliseum Constr. Corp., 22 A D 2d 163; of. Brown v. Weissberg, 22 A D 2d 282). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered November 24, 1964, denying defendant’s motion under CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 caste and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. In this personal injury negligence action the only explanation for the delay of over four-and-a-half years in prosecuting this action is that the file in the office of plaintiff’s attorney had been mislaid. Such an excuse is not sufficient (Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25, 29). The affidavit of the infant plaintiff’s mother is conelusory in form and gives no evidentiary facts showing that defendant was negligent. It does not sufficiently show that plaintiffs have a meritorious cause of action (Sortino v. Fisher, supra, pp. 31-32). Having decided this motion in favor [550]*550of defendant by order dated May 27, 1964, it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to vacate that order and to decide this motion on the basis of the amendment to CPLR 3216 effective September 1, 1964 {Teto v. Fleet Chevrolet Corp., 22 A D 2d 672). Moreover, even if this amendment to CPLR 3216 were applicable, the motion to dismiss should be granted, as it is not founded on plaintiff’s failure to file a note of issue {Mulinos v. Coliseum Constr. Corp., 22 A D 2d 163; of. Brown v. Weissberg, 22 A D 2d 282). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 549, 256 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeks-v-jankowitz-nyappdiv-1965.