Henigsberg v. Macrose Realty Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1972 |
| Citation | 332 N.Y.S.2d 30,39 A.D.2d 677 |
| Parties | Fanny HENIGSBERG, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MACROSE REALTY CORP. and Mary Stein, Defendants-Appellants, and Bessie Silverman, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
L. Vogel, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
S. Goldfinger, B. Abel, New York City, for defendants-appellants.
Before McGIVERN, J.P., and MURPHY, STEUER, TILZER, and EAGER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered June 11, 1971, granting plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar is unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the plaintiff's motion is denied. Appellants shall recover of respondent $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal. This action was placed on the calendar on November 12, 1969 by serving and filing a note of issue without a statement of readiness. The action was stricken from the calendar on November 12, 1970 since the statement of readiness was not filed within one year from the date of the filing of the note of issue, as required under the court rules (22 NYCRR 660.4(d)). By motion returnable April 20, 1971, the plaintiff sought an order permitting the filing of a statement of readiness and restoring the action to the trial calendar. That motion was denied with leave to renew upon papers including a proper affidavit of merits and statement of readiness. Thereafter, this second motion to restore the case to the calendar was brought. We believe the papers in support of the motion were insufficient. Although the motion was brought prior to dismissal of the action (CPLR 3404), nevertheless, under the rules of the court, a motion to restore an action to the calendar must be supported 'by affidavit showing that there is merit to the action; the reasons for the acts or omissions which led to the action being struck from the calendar . . .'. The affidavit of merits submitted was patently insufficient, plaintiff having failed to set forth any factual basis to establish that there is merit to the action. The affidavit merely stated in conclusory language that plaintiff 'was caused to fall as a result of the negligent maintenance of the said Courtyards and that the same was in a defective, broken, condition with a sharp drop therein . . ..' Such statement does not set forth any evidentiary facts upon which the court could evaluate the nature of the condition, the negligence attributable to defendants, how the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. Middle Atlantic Auto Leasing, Inc.
...any basis for evaluating the negligence attributable to the defendants, how the accident happened (Henigsberg v. Macrose Realty Corp., 39 A.D.2d 677, 332 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept, 1972] ), or whether evidence exists to support the allegations of the complaint. See Goldberg v. Soifer, 30 A.D.2d......
-
Monacelli v. Board of Education of City School District of City of Mt. Vernon
...an incompetent source but are also conclusory in nature, merely parroting the allegations of the complaint (see Henigsberg v. Macrose Realty Corp., 39 A.D.2d 677, 332 N.Y.S.2d 30). In these circumstances, Special Term erred in ordering the case restored to the calendar. The complaint should......
-
Damon Creations, Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc.
... ... 596, 598--599, 193 N.Y.S. 401, 402--403; Pine Hill-Kingston Corp. v. Davis, 225 App.Div. 182, 232 N.Y.S. 536; Park Terrace Caterers v ... ...
-
Henigsberg v. Macrose Realty Corp.
...Defendant. Court of Appeals of New York. July 7, 1972. Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 39 A.D.2d 677, 332 N.Y.S.2d 30, which reversed an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, George Stake, J., granting plaintiff's motion to restore action to trial co......