The case was struck from the calendar in September 1992; the instant motion to restore was not made until June 1994. While the suspension of plaintiff's attorney from the practice of law in June 1993 plausibly explains much of the delay up to that point, plaintiff's claim that his injuries kept him confined to bed in California, hampering his efforts to obtain new New York counsel, is not sufficiently demonstrated to excuse the year-long delay that ensued. Nor is a meritorious...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
