From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hencken v. Edelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1962
15 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Opinion

February 6, 1962


Order entered on October 17, 1961, denying defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. Issue was joined in this action on July 17, 1959. Thereafter defendant served a demand for a bill of particulars and plaintiffs moved to modify the demand. On January 11, 1960, an order was made modifying the demand and directing plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars within 20 days. This order was ignored until after the present motion was made to dismiss the complaint. The alacrity with which the bill of particulars and notice of pretrial examination were so served completely negates the reasons advanced by plaintiffs for their failure to proceed diligently. No credible facts have been submitted showing a reasonable excuse for the total inaction of plaintiffs for a period of 19 months.

Concur — McNally, J.P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.


Summaries of

Hencken v. Edelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1962
15 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
Case details for

Hencken v. Edelman

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK W. HENCKEN et al., Respondents, v. SAMUEL EDELMAN, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1962

Citations

15 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Citing Cases

Matter of McNally v. Mosbacher

The medical affidavit is insufficient in that it fails to show with specificity the nature of the infant…

Garcia v. Sentry-Norden Oil and Heating Co.

Relief was nevertheless denied because defendant did not show that it was unduly prejudiced. Such a showing…