Valentin v. Ina Holding Corp.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1963 |
| Citation | 245 N.Y.S.2d 206,20 A.D.2d 525 |
| Parties | Rosa VALENTIN and Hector Valentin, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. INA HOLDING CORP., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A. J. Pomeranz, for plaintiffs-respondents.
I. I. Sternberg, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, VALENTE, STEVENS and BERGAN, JJ.
Order, entered on September 25, 1963, denying defendant's motion to dismiss personal injury negligence action for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The accident occurred July 30, 1960. Action was begun October 18, 1960 and issue was joined November 2, 1960. Nothing has been done since the joinder of issue except plaintiffs filed a note of issue and statement of readiness on July 19, 1963, a few days before the making of the motion to dismiss the action. Plaintiffs seek recovery in gross of $425,000 for an alleged injury to the wife's eye sustained when glass dust from a broken window entered her eye as she closed the window. The alleged excuse for the delay is that plaintiffs' lawyer was ill for a six-month period. The affidavit of merits stated generally that the kitchen window in plaintiffs' apartment was cracked, that notice had been given to the landlord prior to the accident, and that the injuries were sustained while closing the window. While, concededly, plaintiff wife sustained a corneal ulcer, the experts disagree as to the cause. In the meantime, defendant's two medical experts have died. The delay for almost three years is inordinate, and the lawyer's illness for only 6 months of that time is therefore no excuse at all. The filing of the late note of issue does not cancel years of delay (see Sortino v. Fisher, 20 A.D.2d 25, 245 N.Y.S.2d 186).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sortino v. Fisher
...an excuse for the delay charged in the motion. This has been the rule for many years in this Department. (E. g., Valentin v. Ina Holding Corp., 20 A.D.2d 525, 245 N.Y.S.2d 206; White v. Good Operating Corp., supra; Miranda v. City of New York, 13 A.D.2d 723, 214 N.Y.S.2d 27; Lapidus v. City......
-
Kasiuba v. New York Times Co.
...although the filing of the note of issue is no bar to the instant motion to dismiss for general delay (Valentin v. Ina Holding Corp., 20 A.D.2d 525, 245 N.Y.S.2d 206), the court may take into consideration that the defendant did not make any timely motion to dismiss during plaintiff's perio......
-
Scott v. Columbia Memorial Hosp.
...by any medical evidence, is not a valid excuse (see, Prezio v. Milanese, 40 A.D.2d 910, 337 N.Y.S.2d 842; Valentin v. Ina Holding Corp., 20 A.D.2d 525, 245 N.Y.S.2d 206). Moreover, the injury would not have prevented him seeking an extension through his paralegal help. The argument that set......
-
Chery v. Anthony
...933; Berman v. Brunswick Hosp. Center, supra; Hargett v. Health & Hosps. Corp. of City of New York, supra; Valentin v. Ina Holding Corp., 20 A.D.2d 525, 245 N.Y.S.2d 206). Furthermore, counsel's failure to seek assistance or substitution of other counsel during the period of an extended ill......