From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. Hampton Hotel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 18, 1971
36 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

May 18, 1971


Appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 21, 1970 in Albany County, as granted plaintiff leave of 20 days within which to serve a complaint and which provided, upon compliance, that plaintiff's default in timely serving his complaint be excused. A summons having been served without a complaint and more than 18 months having elapsed after appellant served a notice of appearance and written demand for a copy of said pleading, appellant moved for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]). Upon the motion's return, plaintiff neither appeared nor submitted a proposed complaint, an excuse for his default, or a showing of merit. Under the circumstances, the motion should have been granted unconditionally ( Wemple v. Cadoret, 29 A.D.2d 1033; Houle v. Wilde, 22 A.D.2d 727; cf. Lehigh Val. R.R. Co. v. North Amer. Van Lines, 25 A.D.2d 923). Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking from the decretal paragraph so much thereof as granted a 20 day leave to plaintiff to serve a complaint and by directing that the action be dismissed as to appellant, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P.J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Harris v. Hampton Hotel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 18, 1971
36 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

Harris v. Hampton Hotel Corp.

Case Details

Full title:BURTON E. HARRIS, Respondent, v. HAMPTON HOTEL CORPORATION, Appellant, et…

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

Date published: May 18, 1971

Citations

36 A.D.2d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

Shapiro v. Exchange Mutual Insurance Company

Under these circumstances, the court's grant of the order to dismiss conditionally was an abuse of…

Marks v. Levine

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, thus striking therefrom the above-quoted condition, with $20 costs…