AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

ARTHUR TERASAKA et al., Respondents, v. JOHN C. REHFIELD et al., Defendants, and BARNET ARLAN, Appellant.

In an action to recover a deposit on a contract for the sale of real property, defendant Arlan appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 9, 1967 denying his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for unreasonable neglect in prosecuting the action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Under CPLR 3216 as amended (L. 1967, ch. 770, eff. Sept. 1, 1967), appellant was obliged to give the 45-day notice required by the statute, as amended, as a condition precedent to the motion for dismissal. On the merits, there was no persuasive showing by appellant that the delay was excessive, that appellant did not himself contribute in some part to the delay, or that the delay was prejudicial to him. Moreover, since the Statute of Limitations has run, dismissal of the action would result in substantial loss to plaintiffs (cf. Kaprow v. Jacoby, 28 A.D.2d 722). Beldock, P.J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TERASAKA v. REHFIELD
(Oct 30, 1967)