Zentella v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zentella v. New York City Transit Authority

29 A.D.2d 937, 289 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4177

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

DecidedApril 25, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 937 (Zentella v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Zentella v. New York City Transit Authority, 29 A.D.2d 937, 289 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered October 16, 1967, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant, and defendant’s motion to dismiss granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff failed to timely comply with a 45-day notice served by defendant pursuant to CPLR 3216 and it appears that this action, brought in 1961 to recover for personal injuries sustained in 1960, is fraught with extensive and excessive [938]*938delays. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with CPLR 3216, combined with the unjustified and unreasonable delay in the prosecution of the action, and the failure to present a proper factual showing of a meritorious cause of action, calls for a dismissal of the action. (See Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25; Abare v. Moore, 27 A D 2d 147.) Concur— Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Order, entered October 16, 1967, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant, and defendant’s motion to dismiss granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff failed to timely comply with a 45-day notice served by defendant pursuant to CPLR 3216 and it appears that this action, brought in 1961 to recover for personal injuries sustained in 1960, is fraught with extensive and excessive [938]*938delays. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with CPLR 3216, combined with the unjustified and unreasonable delay in the prosecution of the action, and the failure to present a proper factual showing of a meritorious cause of action, calls for a dismissal of the action. (See Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A D 2d 25; Abare v. Moore, 27 A D 2d 147.) Concur— Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 937, 289 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zentella-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1968.