From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. City School Distict

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1977
57 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

April 11, 1977


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., which was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 9, 1976, which denied their motion to restore the action to the calendar and to compel the defendant-respondent to submit to an examination before trial. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The affirmation in support of plaintiffs' motion states as an excuse for the failure to file a statement of readiness that the prior attorney was opening his own practice and moving into a new office. In our opinion, the default was basically a "law office failure". Such excuses "have been weighed in the balance many times and found wanting" (Goldberg v Soifer, 30 A.D.2d 533, 534). Further, the level of activity between the time the note of issue was filed and the time of the instant motion was insufficient to rebut the presumption that the action had been abandoned (cf. Marco v Sachs, 10 N.Y.2d 542). Cohalan, Acting P.J., Hawkins, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lee v. City School Distict

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1977
57 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Lee v. City School Distict

Case Details

Full title:WILLIE M. LEE et al., Appellants, v. CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF…

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

Date published: Apr 11, 1977

Citations

57 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Simmons v. Simmons

The undersigned does not dare to opine on this matter, but, for the convenience of the higher court, sets…

Simmons v. Simmons

The undersigned does not dare to opine on this matter, but for the convenience of the higher court, sets…