From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fishbein v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1964
20 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

February 3, 1964


In an action to recover damages for personal injury, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 25, 1963, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, pursuant to rule 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Order reversed, without costs; motion to dismiss granted; and complaint dismissed, without costs. In our opinion the proffered explanation by plaintiff's attorney that in the course of the removal of his office the file was misplaced, is insufficient to excuse the 52-month delay in the prosecution of the action ( Burke v. City of New York, 18 A.D.2d 898 and cases there cited). In addition, the record discloses a complete absence of a showing of merit. Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion ( Keating v. Smith, 20 A.D.2d 141; Constanzo v. Schwedler, 14 A.D.2d 814; Stein v. West Sayville Pharmacy, 18 A.D.2d 697). Beldock, P.J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fishbein v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1964
20 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Fishbein v. Hertz Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS FISHBEIN, Respondent, v. HERTZ CORP., Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1964

Citations

20 A.D.2d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Miniotis v. Dugan Bros

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the…