Pan v. Metro Apple Express, Inc.

Full title: MARY PAN et al., Plaintiffs, and ROBERT RABINOWITZ, as Administrator of…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1992

188 A.D.2d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

590 N.Y.S.2d 447

Opinion

December 1, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.).

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff's pattern of delay extending over years reflects laxity and a disregard for applicable court rules (see, Salvagne v Transamerica Ins. Co., 93 A.D.2d 761) that precludes a finding that the ostensible office failures are excusable (Tandy Computer Leasing v Video X Home Lib., 124 A.D.2d 530, 531). Moreover, plaintiff's papers do not provide the required evidentiary facts, in admissible form, that would establish that plaintiff has a meritorious claim (James v Hoffman, 158 A.D.2d 398).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.