From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Terasaka v. Rehfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 30, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1011 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

October 30, 1967


In an action to recover a deposit on a contract for the sale of real property, defendant Arlan appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 9, 1967 denying his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for unreasonable neglect in prosecuting the action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Under CPLR 3216 as amended (L. 1967, ch. 770, eff. Sept. 1, 1967), appellant was obliged to give the 45-day notice required by the statute, as amended, as a condition precedent to the motion for dismissal. On the merits, there was no persuasive showing by appellant that the delay was excessive, that appellant did not himself contribute in some part to the delay, or that the delay was prejudicial to him. Moreover, since the Statute of Limitations has run, dismissal of the action would result in substantial loss to plaintiffs (cf. Kaprow v. Jacoby, 28 A.D.2d 722). Beldock, P.J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Terasaka v. Rehfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 30, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1011 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Terasaka v. Rehfield

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR TERASAKA et al., Respondents, v. JOHN C. REHFIELD et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 30, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 1011 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Citing Cases

Goldberg v. Schwartz

No such notice was served by them. Moreover, on this record there was no persuasive showing by defendants…

Garelick v. Garelick

There is no allegation or proof to show that defendant has served a 45-day written demand as a prerequisite…