Willis v. Conkling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willis v. Conkling

20 A.D.2d 932, 249 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3959

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

DecidedApril 27, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 932 (Willis v. Conkling) 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

Willis v. Conkling, 20 A.D.2d 932, 249 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury and loss of services, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 28, 1964, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a prior order dismissing the complaint for lack of prosecution pursuant to rule 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Order of January 28, 1964, reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, plaintiffs’ purported affidavit of merits is patently insufficient. It was not made by one having personal knowledge, nor does it set forth statements of an evidentiary nature which show that plaintiffs have provajble causes of action. In addition, the delay in the prosecution of the action cannot be justified by the mere claim that in the interim plaintiffs were attempting to learn the nature and extent of the injury and damage sustained (CPLR 3216; Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25). Beldoek, P. J., ICleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury and loss of services, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 28, 1964, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a prior order dismissing the complaint for lack of prosecution pursuant to rule 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Order of January 28, 1964, reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, plaintiffs’ purported affidavit of merits is patently insufficient. It was not made by one having personal knowledge, nor does it set forth statements of an evidentiary nature which show that plaintiffs have provajble causes of action. In addition, the delay in the prosecution of the action cannot be justified by the mere claim that in the interim plaintiffs were attempting to learn the nature and extent of the injury and damage sustained (CPLR 3216; Keating v. Smith, 20 A D 2d 141; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25). Beldoek, P. J., ICleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 932, 249 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-conkling-nyappdiv-1964.