TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Constantinos v. Central American Agency, Inc.

Constantinos, also known as Costas ALEVIZOPOULOS v. CENTRAL AMERICAN AGENCY, Inc., Sociedad Armandos Aristomenis, and Belgian Line

Constantinos v. Cent. Am. Agency, Inc., 137 F. Supp. 689 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
August 18, 1955
Judges
Lumbard
Citations
137 F. Supp. 6891955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2347

Opinion of the Court — Lumbard

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge.

This is a motion to vacate a judgment of dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to appear pursuant to a notice of examination.

Plaintiff’s action was commenced February 24, 1953 and is for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff as a seaman on October 21, 1951. On January 25, 1955 an order was entered directing the entry of judgment dismissing plaintiff's action unless the plaintiff should appear for examination within sixty days. Plaintiff did not appear and judgment was entered for defendants Central American Agency and Belgian Line on April 14, 1955 and May 2, 1955 respectively.

On or about May 25, 1955 plaintiff advised his counsel that he was in New York and was available for examination. It is plaintiff’s position on this motion that he never had knowledge of defendants’ notice for examination and that since he is now ready and willing to be examined the dismissal of his case should be vacated.

The only fact alleged in plaintiff’s moving papers which gives any substance to plaintiff’s application is that he is a seaman. However this fact of and in itself is not enough to justify the granting of this motion in the absence of some plausible and specific explanation. Fischer v. Dover Steamship Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 218 F.2d 682 , which should at least entail an affirmative showing that plaintiff and his counsel have taken reasonable precautions to enable the defendants to exercise their procedural rights.

There is no indication that plaintiff’s attorney made any effort to reach him until after defendant’s motion to dismiss was made in January 1955. Plaintiff’s moving papers give no reasonable excuse for his counsel’s apparent inability to communicate with him.

The record in this case shows that from the day this suit was commenced in February 1953, the plaintiff was wholly indifferent to his responsibilities as a litigant under the rules of this Court.

Motion denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 31976: 119572026peak 1957 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Smith v. Kincaid249 F.2d 243 (6th Cir. 1957)
  2. Aberson v. Glassman70 F.R.D. 683 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)
  3. Charles T. O'TOOle v. William J. Meyer Company, Inc., and William J. Meyer, Individually243 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1957)
  4. Don Ellsworth Smith v. Leona Kincaid249 F.2d 243 (6th Cir. 1957)

Most recent

  1. Aberson v. Glassman70 F.R.D. 683 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)
  2. Don Ellsworth Smith v. Leona Kincaid249 F.2d 243 (6th Cir. 1957)
  3. Smith v. Kincaid249 F.2d 243 (6th Cir. 1957)
  4. Charles T. O'TOOle v. William J. Meyer Company, Inc., and William J. Meyer, Individually243 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1957)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Fischer v. Dover S.S. Co., 218 F.2d 682 (2d Cir. 1955) 30

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list