Premo v. Cornell

Decision Date16 February 1982
Citation55 N.Y.2d 962,449 N.Y.S.2d 195
Parties, 434 N.E.2d 264 Chloe PREMO, Appellant, v. Donald CORNELL et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

On review of submissions pursuant to Rule 500.2(b), order affirmed, with costs. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the Appellate Division, 83 A.D.2d 981, 442 N.Y.S.2d 831, abused its discretion in granting defendants' motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. ). Indeed, as we held in Barasch v. Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594, 600-601, 427 N.Y.S.2d 732, 404 N.E.2d 1275, it would have been an abuse of discretion to have failed to dismiss.

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

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Parker v. Mack
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 21, 1984
    ...decision in Premo v. Cornell, 71 A.D.2d 223, 224, 423 N.Y.S.2d 64, on later app. 83 A.D.2d 981, 442 N.Y.S.2d 831, affd. 55 N.Y.2d 962, 449 N.Y.S.2d 195, 434 N.E.2d 264, stated that in view of the change made in CPLR 305 (subd. [b] ) by chapter 528 of the Laws of 1978 "from a permissive to a......
  • Eaton v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 1982
    ...N.Y.S.2d 80, 418 N.E.2d 673; Steen v. New Deal Delivery Serv., 54 N.Y.2d 796, 443 N.Y.S.2d 611, 427 N.E.2d 770; Premo v. Cornell, 55 N.Y.2d 962, 449 N.Y.S.2d 195, 434 N.E.2d 264). In the immediate case, the question is whether the Appellate Division, because, in the interest of justice, it ......
  • Battaglia v. Hofmeister
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 2, 1984
    ...at Special Term to question the authenticity of her excuse (cf. Premo v. Cornell, 83 A.D.2d 981, 442 N.Y.S.2d 831, affd. 55 N.Y.2d 962, 449 N.Y.S.2d 195, 434 N.E.2d 264; Glick v. Flick Realty Corp., 20 A.D.2d 876, 248 N.Y.S.2d 398). We conclude that defendant has proffered both a reasonable......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT