Carvel Dari-Freeze Stores, Inc. v. Lukon
| Citation | 18 A.D.2d 700,236 N.Y.S.2d 374 |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | DARI-FREEZE |
| Parties | CARVELSTORES, INC., Appellant, v. George LUKON, John W. Bogeski and Nathan T. Sedley, etc., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Griffing, Smith, Tasker & Lundberg, Riverhead, for appellant. Howard M. Finkelstein, Riverhead, of counsel.
O'Malley & Boyle, New York City, for respondent Sedley; John J. Boyle, New York City, of counsel.
Albert M. Levert, Northport, for other respondents.
Before UGHETTA, Acting P. J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, RABIN and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to compel specific performance of a contract with respect to real property, and for other relief, the plaintiff corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, as follows from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County:
(1) from so much of one order, dated October 30, 1961 and designated the first order: (a) as granted the motion of the defendant Sedley to dismiss the second amended complaint against him for lack of prosecution; (b) as directed the County Clerk to cancel the lis pendens in the action filed by the plaintiff corporation on April 15, 1958; and (c) as denied its cross motion to extend nunc pro tunc its lis pendens; and (2) from so much of another order, dated the same day and designated as the second order: (a) as granted the motion of defendants, Lukon and Bogeski, to dismiss the third amended complaint against them for lack of prosecution; (b) as directed the County Clerk to cancel the said lis pendens; and (c) as denied plaintiff's cross motion to extend nunc pro tunc its lis pendens or to permit it to file an amended or new lis pendens.
The first order is modified on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, as follows: (1) by striking out its first decretal paragraph which granted unconditionally the motion of the defendant Sedley to dismiss the second amended complaint against him; and (2) by substituting therefor a provision denying said motion on condition that plaintiff shall notice the action for trial at the February 1963 court term. As so modified, the first order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
The second order is modified on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, as follows: (1) by striking out its first decretal paragraph which granted unconditionally the motion of the defendants, Lukon and Bogeski, to dismiss the third amended complaint against them; and (2) by substituting therefor a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sortino v. Fisher
...and motion practice may be, of course, an excuse for not noticing the action for trial immediately (cf. Carvel Dari-Freeze Stores, Inc. v. Lukon, 18 A.D.2d 700, 236 N.Y.S.2d 374; modifying Sup., 219 N.Y.S.2d 716 [Munder, J.], mot. lv. dism. 12 N.Y.2d 1067, 239 N.Y.S.2d 889, 190 N.E.2d 247; ......
-
Yaphank Development Co., Inc. v. Heller
...to revive it by permitting the filing, nunc pro tunc(Carvel-Dari Freeze Stores v. Lukon, 219 N.Y.S.2d 716, mod on other grounds18 A.D.2d 700, 236 N.Y.S.2d 374). Therefore, no issue of fact exists. The plaintiff failed to preserve its lien by properly filing a notice of pendency with the fin......
-
S. J. Groves & Sons Co. v. L. B. Smith, Inc.
...26 N.Y.2d 749, 309 N.Y.S.2d 50, 257 N.E.2d 295; Carvel-Dari Freeze Stores, Inc. v. Lukon, Sup., 219 N.Y.S.2d 716, modified 18 A.D.2d 700, 236 N.Y.S.2d 374. An extension was not During the period of the lis pendens Warren went into bankruptcy and that court issued an order which provided in ......
-
Thelma Sanders & Associates, Inc. v. Hague Development Corp.
...the date of the filing of the order (cf., Carvel Dari-Freeze Stores v. Lukon, Sup., 219 N.Y.S.2d 716, mod. on other grounds 18 A.D.2d 700, 236 N.Y.S.2d 374, lv. dismissed 12 N.Y.2d 647, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 190 N.E.2d ...