Aguilera v. 366 Hewes Street Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aguilera v. 366 Hewes Street Associates, L.P.

265 A.D.2d 436, 696 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10441

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 436 (Aguilera v. 366 Hewes Street Associates, L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aguilera v. 366 Hewes Street Associates, L.P., 265 A.D.2d 436, 696 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 1, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion is denied.

A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party in the event that the case is restored to the trial calendar (see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan, 248 AD2d 432). All four of these components must be satisfied. Since the plaintiff failed to satisfy any of these components, the Supreme Court should have denied her motion. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated December 1, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion is denied.

A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party in the event that the case is restored to the trial calendar (see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan, 248 AD2d 432). All four of these components must be satisfied. Since the plaintiff failed to satisfy any of these components, the Supreme Court should have denied her motion. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 436, 696 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguilera-v-366-hewes-street-associates-lp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack