Wilson v. Levinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Levinson

114 A.D.2d 502, 494 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53206

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 502 (Wilson v. Levinson) 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

Wilson v. Levinson, 114 A.D.2d 502, 494 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated May 17, 1984, which dismissed their action for failure to prosecute.

Order affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ action for failure to prosecute. The action has been pending since early 1980. Plaintiffs failed to serve a bill of particulars pursuant to demand, failed to resume depositions which they had adjourned, and failed to serve a note of issue after defendants served a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 upon them in or about November 1983. Under these circumstances, Special Term could properly have found that the reasons plaintiffs offered for failure to prosecute—scheduling problems, sickness of one of their original attorneys and substitution of attorneys—were insufficient to establish a justifiable excuse for the delay (see, Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated May 17, 1984, which dismissed their action for failure to prosecute.

Order affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ action for failure to prosecute. The action has been pending since early 1980. Plaintiffs failed to serve a bill of particulars pursuant to demand, failed to resume depositions which they had adjourned, and failed to serve a note of issue after defendants served a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 upon them in or about November 1983. Under these circumstances, Special Term could properly have found that the reasons plaintiffs offered for failure to prosecute—scheduling problems, sickness of one of their original attorneys and substitution of attorneys—were insufficient to establish a justifiable excuse for the delay (see, Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 502, 494 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-levinson-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack