Kallman v. Wolf Corp.

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before BREITEL; PER CURIAM
• Citation: Kallman v. Wolf Corp., 239 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 19 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
• Decision Date: 14 May 1963
• Parties: Irwin KALLMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The WOLF CORPORATION, Joseph Wolf, Joseph Eckhaus and Leon Spilky, individually and as general partners of Phoenix Motel Co., a limited partnership, Joseph Wolf, Joseph Eckhaus and Leon Spilky, individually and as general partners of Tucson Motel Co., a limited partnership and Jowol Conduit, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

Page 1020

239 N.Y.S.2d 1020

19 A.D.2d 521

Irwin KALLMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The WOLF CORPORATION, Joseph Wolf, Joseph Eckhaus and Leon Spilky, individually and as general partners of Phoenix Motel Co., a limited partnership, Joseph Wolf, Joseph Eckhaus and Leon Spilky, individually and as general partners of Tucson Motel Co., a limited partnership and Jowol Conduit, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May 14, 1963.

B. Ginsberg, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.

P. Pierce, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, McNALLY, EAGER and BASTOW, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order entered on September 26, 1962, denying defendants-appellants, motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff, if he be so advised, may move within thirty days from the service of the order entered herein to vacate the dismissal on a proper affidavit of merits. In the light of this record and the nature of the companion action, it may well be that the inaction or delay is excusable. ...