From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 28, 1968
29 A.D.2d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Opinion

March 28, 1968

Appeal from the Monroe Special Term.

Present — Bastow, J.P., Goldman, Marsh and Henry, JJ.


Judgment and order unanimously reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion to dismiss complaint for failure to prosecute denied. Memorandum: Were it not for the amendment to CPLR 3216, effective September 1, 1967, we would be constrained to affirm this order made March 3, 1967. Plaintiffs have been guilty of inordinate delay and indifference in the prosecution of their action. The order recites that a note of issue was filed, therefore, defendant should have given the notice provided for in CPLR 3216 (subd. [d]). An appellate tribunal generally applies the law as it exists when it makes its decision in matters of this nature, notwithstanding the fact that a change has been made in the law since the date of the appealed order. "In such situations the applicability and validity of statutes are determined as of the date we make our decision [and cases cited]." ( I.L.F.Y. Co. v. Temporary State Housing Rent Comm., 10 N.Y.2d 263, 270; also, see, Strauss v. University of State of N.Y., 2 N.Y.2d 464.) The only delay which we can consider is that which has occurred since the date of the filing of the note of issue ( Giancone v. City of N.Y., 29 A D 756).


Summaries of

Williams v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 28, 1968
29 A.D.2d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)
Case details for

Williams v. Baker

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v. CHARLES F. BAKER, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 28, 1968

Citations

29 A.D.2d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Citing Cases

Thompson v. Super-Duper, Inc.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. (See Williams v. Baker, 29 A.D.2d 915.)…

Hillegass v. Duffy, Howard Express

This power has been curtailed, however, by the terms of CPLR 3216 (b) which, in general, prohibit such…