From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City v. Philips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 1996
233 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

November 4, 1996.

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin a public nuisance, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated November 10, 1994, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Before: Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants' motion, since the plaintiff demonstrated a justifiable excuse for the delay in responding to the defendant's 90-day demand and a meritorious cause of action ( see, CPLR 3216 [e]; 2005; Jeune v O.T. Trans Mix Corp., 202 AD2d 640).


Summaries of

City v. Philips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 4, 1996
233 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

City v. Philips

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MIKE PHILIPS et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 4, 1996

Citations

233 A.D.2d 290 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
649 N.Y.S.2d 802

Citing Cases

Dorsch v. Kamath

Although the plaintiff failed to follow a court order directing her to file a note of issue within 90 days,…