From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castro v. Banister

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Feb 24, 1964
42 Misc. 2d 387 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)

Opinion

February 24, 1964

Budd, Quencer, Brown Commette for defendant.

Burton C. Pariser for plaintiff.


Defendant moves, pursuant to rule 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules for an order dismissing the complaint herein for unreasonable neglect to prosecute. Issue was joined on April 10, 1962. Shortly thereafter plaintiff was convicted of a felony and incarcerated in a State prison.

The motion came on for hearing on January 28, 1964. Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to submit an affidavit of merits. The affidavit of merits alleges that among other injuries plaintiff was caused to undergo surgical removal of the left eye. Plaintiff since the argument of the motion has been released from prison.

Section 510 of the Penal Law provides for the suspension of civil rights during incarceration in a State prison. There is no doubt that the use of court process is a civil right. Section 10 Civ. Rights of the Civil Rights Law expressly so provides. Yet a literal proscription of use by a convict of all civil process under any and all circumstances would eventuate in forfeiture of property rights of convicts. No such forfeitures are today among the penalties inflicted upon felons. It would be cruel and inhuman to deprive the plaintiff of his day in court. The plaintiff is now ready, willing and able to proceed and has offered to submit to any examination the defendant may desire. Defendant has failed to show that he has in any way been prejudiced. Motion denied.


Summaries of

Castro v. Banister

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County
Feb 24, 1964
42 Misc. 2d 387 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)
Case details for

Castro v. Banister

Case Details

Full title:TONY CASTRO, Plaintiff, v. PINKY BANISTER, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County

Date published: Feb 24, 1964

Citations

42 Misc. 2d 387 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)
248 N.Y.S.2d 193

Citing Cases

Hansel v. Lamb

Dismissal of the complaint under these circumstances would deprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional…

Gadsden v. Transit Authority

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiff's failure to comply with a…