From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glick v. Flick Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 1964
20 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

April 21, 1964


Order, entered on June 28, 1963, denying the motion of the appearing defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motions to dismiss the complaint granted, with $10 costs. The failure of the plaintiff to take any steps in the prosecution of this action for some 29 months after the joinder of issue requires that this action be dismissed unless such delay is satisfactorily explained ( Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A.D.2d 25; Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Rosenberg, 3 A.D.2d 988). Plaintiff's affidavit, offered without a supporting medical affidavit, fails to establish his contention that illness disabled him from communicating the necessary information to his counsel so as to enable the latter to proceed in the action. (See, Smallen v. Sherman Sq. Hotel Corp., 20 A.D.2d 527.) It is also to be noted that the affidavit of merits fails to demonstrate the "evidentiary facts * * * in the same manner by which plaintiff expects to prove his case upon a trial" ( Sortino v. Fisher, supra, p. 32). The affidavit is at best conclusory and founded principally upon hearsay.

Concur — Breitel, J.P., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Staley, JJ.


Summaries of

Glick v. Flick Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 1964
20 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Glick v. Flick Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL GLICK, Respondent, v. FLICK REALTY CORP. et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Apr 21, 1964

Citations

20 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Premo v. Cornell

The delay here, however, is substantial and the excuse advanced for that delay, namely, that prompt…

Podheiser v. Somerstein Caterers, Inc.

Pursuant to CPLR 3216, a notice was served upon plaintiffs demanding that within 45 days thereafter…