Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
There is no merit to the defendants' contentions that the index number used in this action was purchased by the plaintiff for a prior, different action, and that an order of the Supreme Court, dated April 14, 2000, dismissed such prior action. Thus, the plaintiff was not required to purchase a new index number, and his failure to do so does not mandate dismissal of the action. Consequently, his claim is not time barred...
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.
