From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roe v. Kurkhill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 1958
6 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

May 19, 1958


In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, and for other relief, the appeal is from an order denying appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of diligent prosecution. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. Respondent failed to present a reasonable excuse for the delay of over five years in bringing the action on for trial and failed to present facts showing merit in his action. The denial of the motion was therefore an improvident exercise of discretion ( Cooperman v. Princeton Realty Corp., 3 A.D.2d 850; Moebus v. Paul Tishman Co., 5 A.D.2d 786). Furthermore, the action having been marked off the calendar and not restored within one year thereafter is to be deemed abandoned and the complaint dismissed for failure to prosecute (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 302). Nolan, P.J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Roe v. Kurkhill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 1958
6 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

Roe v. Kurkhill

Case Details

Full title:GRANT A. ROE, Respondent, v. MARTIN A. KURKHILL et al., Doing Business as…

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

Date published: May 19, 1958

Citations

6 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

Marco v. Sachs

That being so, the case could not have been restored in the manner described, i.e., by notice of restoral on…

Diezelski v. Food Fair Stores, Inc.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. A case marked "off" the calendar which is not restored…