Case Name: William E. Steen, Appellant, v. New Deal Delivery Service, Inc., Defendant, and 498 Seventh Avenue Associates et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1981-09-17
Citations: 54 N.Y.2d 796
Docket Number: 
Parties: William E. Steen, Appellant, v New Deal Delivery Service, Inc., Defendant, and 498 Seventh Avenue Associates et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 796–798

Head Matter:
William E. Steen, Appellant, v New Deal Delivery Service, Inc., Defendant, and 498 Seventh Avenue Associates et al., Respondents.
Decided September 17, 1981
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Abraham Reingold for appellant.
Harold M. Foster for respondents.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
On summary consideration, order affirmed, with costs. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the Appellate Division abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b j). As we held in Barasch v Micucci (49 NY2d 594, 600-601), it would have constituted an abuse of discretion to have failed to dismiss.
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.