From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Willis v. Conkling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1964
20 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

April 27, 1964


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury and loss of services, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 28, 1964, which granted plaintiffs' motion to vacate a prior order dismissing the complaint for lack of prosecution pursuant to rule 3216 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Order of January 28, 1964, reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, plaintiffs' purported affidavit of merits is patently insufficient. It was not made by one having personal knowledge, nor does it set forth statements of an evidentiary nature which show that plaintiffs have provable causes of action. In addition, the delay in the prosecution of the action cannot be justified by the mere claim that in the interim plaintiffs were attempting to learn the nature and extent of the injury and damage sustained (CPLR 3216; Keating v. Smith, 20 A.D.2d 141; Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A.D.2d 25). Beldock, P.J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Willis v. Conkling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1964
20 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Willis v. Conkling

Case Details

Full title:LOUISE A. WILLIS et al., Respondents, v. MARIA L. CONKLING, Doing Business…

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

Date published: Apr 27, 1964

Citations

20 A.D.2d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

R.M. v. D.M.

Upon further review of the papers, it appears that the father's attorney's affirmation is unsigned, and it…

R.M. v. D.M.

Upon further review of the papers, it appears that the father's attorney's affirmation is unsigned, and it…