Case Name: Chloe Premo, Appellant, v. Donald Cornell et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1982-02-16
Citations: 55 N.Y.2d 962
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chloe Premo, Appellant, v Donald Cornell et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 962–964

Head Matter:
Chloe Premo, Appellant, v Donald Cornell et al., Respondents.
Decided Feburary 16, 1982
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Robert G. Main, Jr., for appellant.
James P. Bessette for respondents.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rule of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the Appellate Division abused its discretion in granting defendants' motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]). Indeed, as we held in Barasch v Micucci (49 NY2d 594, 600-601), it would have been an abuse of discretion to have failed to dismiss.
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.