Wright v. Spring Lake Hotel, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. Spring Lake Hotel, Inc.

20 A.D.2d 936, 248 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3914

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

DecidedApril 29, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 936 (Wright v. Spring Lake Hotel, Inc.) 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

Wright v. Spring Lake Hotel, Inc., 20 A.D.2d 936, 248 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to diligently prosecute the action, which is for personal injuries sustained on August 31, 1959 by reason of a falling ceiling. The motion was made under rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, upon plaintiffs’ failure to serve and file a note of issue. Subsequently the Civil Practice Law and Rules -became effective but the motion was not “ rendered ineffectual or impaired” thereby. (CPLR 10003.) Upon the papers before us it cannot be found “ that the neglect of the plaintiff [s] to bring the action to trial has not been unreasonable” (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 156). After commencing the action, plaintiffs took no proceedings therein until this motion was made two years later. 'The only affidavit in answer to the motion is that of plaintiffs’ attorney and does no more than to state that the failure to take any steps in prosecution of the action was due to his intention to attempt to negotiate a settlement if and when defendant should undertake pretrial procedures; but even actual negotiations would not necessarily have afforded an excuse. (See Krell v. Pelham Syndicate, 14 A D 2d 845; Maizonet v. Lee Props., 11 A D 2d 667.) Further, although the answer had denied the incident and there had been no compliance with the demand for bill of particulars dated October 11, 1960, plaintiffs served no affidavit of merits upon this motion. Plaintiffs did not argue this appeal nor did they submit a brief. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to diligently prosecute the action, which is for personal injuries sustained on August 31, 1959 by reason of a falling ceiling. The motion was made under rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice, upon plaintiffs’ failure to serve and file a note of issue. Subsequently the Civil Practice Law and Rules -became effective but the motion was not “ rendered ineffectual or impaired” thereby. (CPLR 10003.) Upon the papers before us it cannot be found “ that the neglect of the plaintiff [s] to bring the action to trial has not been unreasonable” (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 156). After commencing the action, plaintiffs took no proceedings therein until this motion was made two years later. 'The only affidavit in answer to the motion is that of plaintiffs’ attorney and does no more than to state that the failure to take any steps in prosecution of the action was due to his intention to attempt to negotiate a settlement if and when defendant should undertake pretrial procedures; but even actual negotiations would not necessarily have afforded an excuse. (See Krell v. Pelham Syndicate, 14 A D 2d 845; Maizonet v. Lee Props., 11 A D 2d 667.) Further, although the answer had denied the incident and there had been no compliance with the demand for bill of particulars dated October 11, 1960, plaintiffs served no affidavit of merits upon this motion. Plaintiffs did not argue this appeal nor did they submit a brief. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 936, 248 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-spring-lake-hotel-inc-nyappdiv-1964.