Hurley v. Dougherty
| Decision Date | 31 March 1977 |
| Citation | 393 N.Y.S.2d 106,56 A.D.2d 974 |
| Parties | Ellen HURLEY, Appellant, v. James DOUGHERTY et al., Respondents, and Robert D. Jung et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Julien & Schlesinger, P.C., New York City (William D. Fireman, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Martin, Ganotis, Amsler & Brown, Syracuse (John Ganotis, Syracuse, of counsel), for respondents.
Maynard, O'Connor & Smith, Albany, for defendants. (No appearance on appeal).
Before GREENBLOTT, J.P., and SWEENEY, KANE, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered April 30, 1976 in Albany County, which granted a motion by defendants Dougherty and Macomber to dismiss the complaint as to them for want of prosecution.
Plaintiff appeals from an order which dismissed the complaint as to two defendants because of her failure to serve and file a note of issue in compliance with a 45-day demand served under CPLR 3216.
This action was commenced and issue was joined in 1972. A 45-day demand to resume prosecution of the action was served upon plaintiff's attorneys on April 24, 1975. There was no response until March 25, 1976. The sole excuse offered as justification for the 11-month delay, is that it was caused by the failure of the respondents to submit to an examination before trial. As noted by Special Term: .
We cannot say that Special Term abused its discretion in granting the instant motion to dismiss and, accordingly, the order should be affirmed (Milligan v. Hycel Realty Corp., 14 N.Y.2d 581 (248 N.Y.S.2d 877, 198 N.E.2d 256); Scheckter v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 1075 (307 N.Y.S.2d 253)).
Order affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinisi v. Cornwall Hosp.
...for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars did not permit her to "ignore" the 90-day notice (see, e.g., Hurley v. Dougherty, 56 A.D.2d 974, 393 N.Y.S.2d 106 [pendency of pre-trial proceedings alone does not justify noncompliance], the submission of this motion, which, if granted,......
-
Hasselt v. Allen
...dismissed, 14 N.Y.2d 957, 253 N.Y.S.2d 993, 202 N.E.2d 375), or that another party failed to appear for deposition (Hurley v. Dougherty, 56 A.D.2d 974, 393 N.Y.S.2d 106, appeal dismissed 42 N.Y.2d 996, 398 N.Y.S.2d 418, 368 N.E.2d 40). The delay has prejudiced defendants' ability to prepare......
-
Bean Bros., Inc. v. Eckert
...that it has a good and meritorious cause of action (CPLR 3216, subd. (e)) compelled the dismissal of the action (Hurley v. Dougherty, 56 A.D.2d 974, 393 N.Y.S.2d 106 (1977); Semprevivo v. Wormuth, 49 A.D.2d 993, 374 N.Y.S.2d 390; Altman v. Embassy Coop., 41 A.D.2d 767, 341 N.Y.S.2d Order af......
-
Meth v. Maimonides Medical Center
...plaintiffs' contention that defendant Lev refused to submit to examinations before trial justify their default (see Hurley v. Dougherty, 56 A.D.2d 974, 393 N.Y.S.2d 106). The three notices to take deposition were served two to three years apart and constitute the only activity initiated by ......