Waldman v. Cedar Management Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1960
• Citation: 11 A.D.2d 646,201 N.Y.S.2d 238
• Parties: Bernard WALDMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CEDAR MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 238

201 N.Y.S.2d 238

11 A.D.2d 646

Bernard WALDMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CEDAR MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 7, 1960.

A. E. Rosenthal, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

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

Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, McNALLY, STEVENS and NOONAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, so as to dismiss the complaint unconditionally, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and judgment directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs. Counsel's explanation of the three years and nine months delay in bringing the case on for trial due to the failure of trial counsel to act diligently does not satisfy the requirements of reasonableness called for under section 181 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice (Moshman v. City of New York, 3 A.D.2d 822, 824, 825, 160 N.Y.S.2d 977). Rist v. 234 East 33rd Corp., 4 A.D.2d 867, 167 N.Y.S.2d 46;Hardware Mutual Cas. Co. v. Rosenberg, 3 A.D.2d 988, 163 N.Y.S.2d 88;Hyde & Sons v. Roller Derby Skate Co., 1 A.D.2d 942, 150 N.Y.S.2d 325;Davis v. Cunard Steamship Co., 284 App.Div. 1036, 135 N.Y.S.2d 665; Cooper v. Schnabolk, 283 App.Div. 937, 130 N.Y.S.2d 606.