From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heller v. Josephthal Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 9, 1964
21 A.D.2d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

July 9, 1964


Order, entered on May 22, 1964, denying defendant's motion to dismiss the action for rescission because of failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The action was commenced March 21, 1960 and issue joined on April 21, 1960. Pretrial examinations were completed in November, 1960. A note of issue for the June 1961 Term was served but not filed. Nothing has been done since that time. The alleged excuse for delay is that the firm handling plaintiff's case was dissolved in 1961 and the file misplaced. The action seeks to rescind a sale of stock which plaintiff claims he bought on defendant's representation that they had inside information that the stock would go up. The stock was purchased at 19 and was selling at 19 1/4 at the time the note of issue was served. No substantial reason is submitted for the delay, and the affidavit of merit is insufficient. The motion to dismiss should have been granted. (See Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A.D.2d 25.)

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.


Summaries of

Heller v. Josephthal Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 9, 1964
21 A.D.2d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Heller v. Josephthal Company

Case Details

Full title:SIDNEY HELLER, Respondent, v. JOSEPHTHAL COMPANY, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 9, 1964

Citations

21 A.D.2d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Passalacqua v. County Estates, Inc.

Plaintiff failed to comply with such demand. In our opinion, the excuses offered by the plaintiff did not…

North Shore Exchange, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co.

Pursuant to CPLR 3216, as amended, defendants duly served upon plaintiff's attorneys a notice demanding that…