Angelucci v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Angelucci v. City of New York

297 A.D.2d 648, 747 N.Y.2d 181, 747 N.Y.S.2d 181, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8424

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 648 (Angelucci v. City of New York) 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

Angelucci v. City of New York, 297 A.D.2d 648, 747 N.Y.2d 181, 747 N.Y.S.2d 181, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

“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[y] intent to abandon the matter and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party” (Rivers v Jamaica Water Supply Co., 250 AD2d 661 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Moreover, all of the above requirements must be satisfied before a case can be properly restored (see Fico v Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 248 AD2d 432).

The plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to restoration of the case to the trial calendar (see Fico v Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., supra). The plaintiffs affidavit failed to specify the nature of the alleged negligence on the defendant’s part, [649]*649and thus, failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim. The plaintiff also failed, inter alia, to proffer a reasonable excuse for his delay in moving for the instant relief.

The cross motion is denied as unnecessary since the action was deemed dismissed on August 7, 1998. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

“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[y] intent to abandon the matter and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party” (Rivers v Jamaica Water Supply Co., 250 AD2d 661 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Moreover, all of the above requirements must be satisfied before a case can be properly restored (see Fico v Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 248 AD2d 432).

The plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to restoration of the case to the trial calendar (see Fico v Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., supra). The plaintiffs affidavit failed to specify the nature of the alleged negligence on the defendant’s part, [649]*649and thus, failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim. The plaintiff also failed, inter alia, to proffer a reasonable excuse for his delay in moving for the instant relief.

The cross motion is denied as unnecessary since the action was deemed dismissed on August 7, 1998. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 648, 747 N.Y.2d 181, 747 N.Y.S.2d 181, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angelucci-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack