History
  • No items yet
midpage
Fast v. Meenan Oil Co.
1 A.D.2d 889
| N.Y. App. Div. | 1956
|
Check Treatment

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, resulting from a fire, a motion to dismiss for failure to diligently prosecute was made about eighteen months after issue was joined and about ten months after respondents served a bill of particulars. The opposing affidavit by respondents’ attorney sought to excuse the delay on the ground that he was hoping for a settlement of the action. The Special Term held the delay “inordinate” and denied the motion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Respondents have failed to sustain the burden of showing that the neglect was not unreasonable (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 156) and have also failed to show that the action has merit. Accordingly, there was no basis for an exercise of discretion in favor of excusing the delay. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Fast v. Meenan Oil Co.
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Mar 30, 1956
Citation: 1 A.D.2d 889
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.