From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moebus v. Paul Tishman Co. Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 1958
5 A.D.2d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

January 20, 1958


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries based, inter alia, on a claim of negligence, the appeal is from an order denying appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint, in which respondent Horn Construction Co. joins, and to dismiss respondent Horn's cross complaint against the appellants, for lack of diligent prosecution, and to sever the action as to defendant Paul Tishman General Contractor, Inc. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted to the extent of dismissing (1) the complaint as to appellants and respondent Horn Construction Co. and (2) dismissing the cross complaint. In view of the failure of respondent Moebus to set forth any facts showing merit in his action or excusing his delay in the prosecution thereof, it was an improvident exercise of discretion by the learned Special Term to have denied the motion ( Brassner Mfg. Co. v. Consolidated Edison C. of N.Y., 1 A.D.2d 840; Fast v. Meenan Oil Co., 1 A.D.2d 889). Nolan, P.J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Moebus v. Paul Tishman Co. Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 1958
5 A.D.2d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

Moebus v. Paul Tishman Co. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BERTRAND E. MOEBUS, Respondent, v. PAUL TISHMAN CO. INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 20, 1958

Citations

5 A.D.2d 786 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. King Haven Holding Co.

While it may be that under the circumstances of this case there was a showing of a valid excuse for the delay…

Seager v. Ellis

Once undue delay has been established prima facie, a court should indulge a plaintiff only if (1) a…