Amodeo v. Radler

• Decision Date: 07 July 1983
• Citation: 59 N.Y.2d 1001,466 N.Y.S.2d 953,453 N.E.2d 1242
• Parties: , 453 N.E.2d 1242 Anthony AMODEO et al., Appellants, v. Bruce RADLER, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 953

466 N.Y.S.2d 953

59 N.Y.2d 1001, 453 N.E.2d 1242

Anthony AMODEO et al., Appellants, v.Bruce RADLER, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 7, 1983.

[59 N.Y.2d 1002] James L. Fischer, Thomas W. Hyland, John W. Manning and Robert F. DiUbaldo, New York City, for appellants.

E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., Mineola, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division89 A.D.2d 594, 452 N.Y.S.2d 471 should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiffs failed to establish any merit to their cause of action.Failing that, it was proper for the court to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment.(Indig v. Finkelstein, 23 N.Y.2d 728, 296 N.Y.S.2d 370, 244 N.E.2d 61.)

It is thus unnecessary for us, at this time, to address the recently enacted amendments to the CPLR to allow the lower courts to exercise discretion "to excuse delay or default resulting from law office failure."(CPLR 2005, 3012, subd. [d].)

COOKE, C.J., and JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER and SIMONS, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.