Siegel v. City of New York

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Siegel v. City of New York, 227 N.Y.S.2d 234, 16 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
• Decision Date: 16 April 1962
• Parties: Bessie SIEGEL and Jack Siegel, Respondents, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and Harry Miskoff, Appellants.

Page 234

227 N.Y.S.2d 234

16 A.D.2d 679

Bessie SIEGEL and Jack Siegel, Respondents, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK and Harry Miskoff, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 16, 1962.

James I. Lysaght, New York City, for appellant Miskoff; Wm. F. McNulty, New York City, of counsel.

Leo A. Larkin, Corporation Counsel, New York City, for appellant City of New York; John A. Murray, New York City, of counsel.

Louis I. Rothenberg, Brooklyn, for respondent.

Before BELDOCK, P. J., and KLEINFELD, CHRIST, BRENNAN and HOPKINS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, each defendant appeals as follows from a separate order of the Supreme Court, Kings County: (1) Defendant Miskoff appeals from an order, dated October 11, 1961, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs' lack of prosecution, on condition that plaintiffs notice the case for trial for the December 1961 Term; (2) Defendant City of New York appeals from an order dated October 17, 1961, which granted plaintiffs' motion to open their default upon a prior motion by the defendant City to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs' lack of prosecution, and which denied the City's said motion on condition that plaintiffs notice the case for trial for the December 1961 Term.

Orders reversed with one bill of ten dollars costs and disbursements to each defendant; and the motion of each defendant to dismiss the complaint is granted.

Plaintiffs failed adequately to explain or show reasonable excuse for the delay of three years and nine months since joinder of issue in bringing the cause on for trial. Plaintiffs also failed...