Alves v. Keane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alves v. Keane

209 A.D.2d 655, 619 N.Y.S.2d 672

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 655 (Alves v. Keane) 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

Alves v. Keane, 209 A.D.2d 655, 619 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), entered March 10, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as abandoned, and refused to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their lengthy delay in seeking to restore their action to the calendar after it had been marked "off”. Under all the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Supreme Court neither abused nor improvidently exercised its discretion in [656]*656dismissing the action (see, CPLR 3404; see also, Robinson v New York City Tr. Auth., 203 AD2d 351; Kopilas v Peterson, 206 AD2d 460; Friedberg v Bay Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 122 AD2d 194; Monahan v Fiore, 71 AD2d 914). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Altman, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), entered March 10, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as abandoned, and refused to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their lengthy delay in seeking to restore their action to the calendar after it had been marked "off”. Under all the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Supreme Court neither abused nor improvidently exercised its discretion in [656]*656dismissing the action (see, CPLR 3404; see also, Robinson v New York City Tr. Auth., 203 AD2d 351; Kopilas v Peterson, 206 AD2d 460; Friedberg v Bay Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 122 AD2d 194; Monahan v Fiore, 71 AD2d 914). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 655, 619 N.Y.S.2d 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alves-v-keane-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack