REESE v. McDANIEL


224 A.D.2d 329 (1996)

638 N.Y.S.2d 43

Malcolm Reese, Appellant, v. Carl E. McDaniel, Defendant, and Michael E. Scarboro et al., Respondents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

February 22, 1996


Plaintiff's excuse for failing to comply with defendants' 90-day demand and then for failing to offer an excuse for such noncompliance on his first motion to renew or reargue — that he was incarcerated at all relevant times and did not want to reveal that fact for fear of prejudicing his position in settlement negotiations — is of dubious validity with respect to the original motion to dismiss and of no validity with respect to plaintiff's first motion...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases