From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeSimone v. DiMaria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1995
216 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 19, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. The 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 was served prior to the completion of discovery (see, Markarian v Hundert, 204 A.D.2d 697; Martinisi v. Cornwall Hosp., 177 A.D.2d 549), and the record fails to reveal any significant delay on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting this action (see, CPLR 3216 [a]). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

DeSimone v. DiMaria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1995
216 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

DeSimone v. DiMaria

Case Details

Full title:ROSA DeSIMONE, Respondent, v. ANTHONY DiMARIA, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 19, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 540

Citing Cases

McCracken v. Nitto Kohki USA, Inc.

Thereafter, the injured plaintiff timely filed a note of issue. Since the appellants were still seeking…

Gonzalez v. County of Westchester

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant's motion which…