Case ID: ad2d_224/html/0329-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Malcolm Reese, Appellant, v Carl E. McDaniel, Defendant, and Michael E. Scarboro et al., Respondents.
    [638 NYS2d 43]
   —Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered December 30, 1994, which, insofar as appeal-able, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew prior orders, same court and Justice, dismissing the complaint as against defendants-respondents for want of prosecution and denying a first motion to renew such dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

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 to renew. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.