From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weinstock v. Handler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 22, 1995
216 A.D.2d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 22, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).


Plaintiff's commencement of the related Federal action against defendants and his continued defense in the related Kings County action are sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his delay in the instant action and lack of intent to abandon it ( see, Rodriguez v. Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 A.D.2d 720, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 874). And the merit of the instant action is sufficiently demonstrated by plaintiff's detailed pleadings in these related actions ( see, General Staple Co. v. Amtronics, Inc., 81 A.D.2d 877, 878). The Clerk's restoration of the action to the calendar notwithstanding that no formal motion was made, does not mandate a grant of defendants' motion to vacate at this juncture. We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Weinstock v. Handler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 22, 1995
216 A.D.2d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Weinstock v. Handler

Case Details

Full title:ISRAEL WEINSTOCK et al., Respondents, v. EMMERICH HANDLER et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 22, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 108