Case Name: Thomas R. McMann, Respondent, v. Edward A. Brown, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-03
Citations: 92 A.D. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas R. McMann, Respondent, v. Edward A. Brown, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
Thomas R. McMann, Respondent, v. Edward A. Brown, Appellant.
Dismissal of an action for a failure to prosecute it—when it is proper.
Upon a motion, made September 18, 1903, to dismiss a complaint for a failure to prosecute the action, it appeared that issue was joined therein August 21, 1900; that a. note of issue was filed on the 22d day of August, 1902,' but that no notice of trial was served until October, 1903, after the motion to dismiss the complaint had been made. No excuse was given for the delay except the bare statement that through “inadvertence” the notice of trial was not sooner served.
Held, that the excuse offered did not furnish any basis whatever for the exercise of judicial discretion and that the motion, to dismiss the complaint for a failure to prosecute the action within section 822 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rule 36 of the General Rules of Practice, should be granted.
Appeal by the defendant, Edward A. Brown, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the •1st day. of December, 1903, denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.
Philip A. Forty, for the appellant.
G. F. Goddard, for the respondent.

Opinion:
McLaughlin, J.:
Defendant appeals from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff has unreasonably neglected to. prosecute the action. Issue was joined in the action on August 21, 1900. The motion was made September 18, 1903, The facts upon which defendant claimed that he' was entitled to have the complaint dismissed are similar to those stated in Fisher Malting Co. v. Brown (92 App. Div. 251), and it is, therefore, unnecessary to restate them. In the affidavit of the plaintiff's attorney used in opposition to the motion the statement is made that a note of issue was filed on the 22d day of August, 1902, but the fact is hot denied that no notice of trial was served until October, 1903, and until after the motion to dismiss was made. The note of issue filed was ineffectual because the action had not then been noticed for trial. (Code Civ. Proc. § 977.) No excuse , was given for the delay, except the bare statement that through " inadvertence " the notice of trial was not sooner served. If the ' mere statement of " inadvertence " is to be treated as furnishing an adequate excuse for delay of over three years, then section 822 of the Code of Civil Procedure and rule 36 of the General Rules of Practice serve little purpose. Such a statement alone furnishes no basis whatever for the exercise of judicial discretion. No excuse for the neglect to prosecute the action was given by plaintiff, and for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered in Fisher Malting Co. v. Brown (supra) the motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.
It follows, therefore, that, the order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss granted, with costs of the action and ten dollars costs of the motion.
Van Beunt, P. J., Patteeson, O'Beien and Laughlin, JJ., concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars .costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss granted, with costs of action and ten dollars' costs of motion.