119 A.D. 45 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1907
It is undisputed that this action was commenced 'on March 8, 1894, arid issue joined by the seiwice of an amended answer on March 6, 1895, since which time no effort has been made by the plaintiff to bring the issues to trial until after the service of notice of the defendant’s motion. These facts established & prima facie case of unreasonable neglect, and threw the burden of excusing such neglect upon the plaintiff. . (Seymour v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 12 App. Div. 300; McMann v. Brown, 92 id. 249; Fisher Malting Co. v. Brown, Id. 251; Zafarano v. Baird, 80 id. 144.) The only explanation. of this long delay of more than
The burden resting upon the plaintiff has not been met, and the - order must be reversed, with fen dollars costs and -disbursements, and the motion to dismiss granted, with Costs.
Hibsohbeeg, P. J., Woodwabd, .Jenks and Milleb, . JJ., ■ concurred. , . -
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss.granted, with costs.