From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mann v. Nednil Terrace Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 1, 1962
35 Misc. 2d 182 (N.Y. App. Term 1962)

Opinion

February 1, 1962

Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, New York County, ROBERT V. SANTANGELO, J.

Tropp Steinbock ( I. Sidney Worthman of counsel), for appellant.

Benjamin Feldstein for respondent.


Plaintiff William H. Mann failed to present an adequate excuse for the inordinate delay in failing to place the case upon the calendar for trial after the joinder of issue. Our court has consistently held that settlement negotiations do not suffice to excuse an unwarranted delay in the prosecution of an action, and that placing of a case upon the calendar, after service of defendant's motion to dismiss, does not serve to exculpate the delay. The proffered excuses by plaintiff's attorney were insufficient and inadequate to warrant the favor of the court.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss granted.

Concur — HECHT, J.P., GOLD and CAPOZZOLI, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Mann v. Nednil Terrace Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 1, 1962
35 Misc. 2d 182 (N.Y. App. Term 1962)
Case details for

Mann v. Nednil Terrace Corp.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM H. MANN, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. NEDNIL TERRACE CORP.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Feb 1, 1962

Citations

35 Misc. 2d 182 (N.Y. App. Term 1962)
232 N.Y.S.2d 213

Citing Cases

Sortino v. Fisher

The excuse, however, ceases to have effect within a brief interval after the last communication (e.g., Wilson…

Selwitshka v. Glens Falls Hospital

In Sortino the delay was of but 5 months — here it was of 8 months, if not of 23 — and the court said (p 29):…