179 MacDougal Equities, Inc. v. North Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

179 MacDougal Equities, Inc. v. North Realty Co.

232 A.D.2d 280, 648 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10366

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 22, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 30, 1995, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a CPLR 3404 dismissal of the action and to restore it to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to restore was properly denied in the absence of a showing of activity during the year following the striking of the action from the calendar indicative of plaintiffs’ intent not to abandon the action (CPLR 3404; see, Curtin v Grand Union [281] Co., 124 AD2d 918, 919). Indeed, there does not appear to have been any activity for a period of some three and a half years following the striking of the action from the calendar. Plaintiffs’ excuse that their attorney did not know that the case had been struck until she attempted to file a note of issue does not explain the three-year delay in filing the note of issue after disclosure had been completed. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 30, 1995, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a CPLR 3404 dismissal of the action and to restore it to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to restore was properly denied in the absence of a showing of activity during the year following the striking of the action from the calendar indicative of plaintiffs’ intent not to abandon the action (CPLR 3404; see, Curtin v Grand Union [281] Co., 124 AD2d 918, 919). Indeed, there does not appear to have been any activity for a period of some three and a half years following the striking of the action from the calendar. Plaintiffs’ excuse that their attorney did not know that the case had been struck until she attempted to file a note of issue does not explain the three-year delay in filing the note of issue after disclosure had been completed. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

179 MacDougal Equities, Inc. v. North Realty Co., 232 A.D.2d 280, 648 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 280 (179 MacDougal Equities, Inc. v. North Realty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related