Williams v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Cunningham

61 A.D.2d 860, 401 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10341

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 860 (Williams v. Cunningham) 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

Williams v. Cunningham, 61 A.D.2d 860, 401 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 22, 1977 in Schenectady County, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint. The record discloses that while originally the defendant’s counsel requested a delay for the purpose of timely entering an appearance, the plaintiff after receiving such appearance and a demand for a complaint failed to serve a complaint or take any steps to prosecute the action until after the motion herein was made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]) to dismiss the action. The motion herein is discretionary and the affidavits on behalf of plaintiff do not establish that the action has any merit and, in fact, they tend to establish that the plaintiff has no cause for action as against the defendant. Under such circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion and prolong the continuance of this action. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion to dismiss complaint granted. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 22, 1977 in Schenectady County, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint. The record discloses that while originally the defendant’s counsel requested a delay for the purpose of timely entering an appearance, the plaintiff after receiving such appearance and a demand for a complaint failed to serve a complaint or take any steps to prosecute the action until after the motion herein was made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]) to dismiss the action. The motion herein is discretionary and the affidavits on behalf of plaintiff do not establish that the action has any merit and, in fact, they tend to establish that the plaintiff has no cause for action as against the defendant. Under such circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion and prolong the continuance of this action. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion to dismiss complaint granted. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 860, 401 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-cunningham-nyappdiv-1978.