From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrett v. Littles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 1999
260 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 12, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute (see, Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499, 504). The plaintiff had a justifiable excuse for his failure to file a note of issue due to the neglect of his previous attorneys (see, Carte v. Segall, 134 A.D.2d 397).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barrett v. Littles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 1999
260 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Barrett v. Littles

Case Details

Full title:DAVID BARRETT, Respondent, v. MERLE LITTLES, Also Known as CAROLE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 12, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 728

Citing Cases

Moore v. Kendra Day

In making that discretionary determination, the court should consider relevant factors, such as the extent of…

Christie v. Mineola Ophthalmology Associates

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in…