Avila v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Avila v. City of New York

254 A.D.2d 383, 678 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11095

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 383 (Avila 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

Avila v. City of New York, 254 A.D.2d 383, 678 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Raul Ruiz appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated October 1, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘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 a lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party ” (Rivers v Jamaica Water Supply Co., 250 AD2d 661, quoting Civello v Grossman, 192 AD2d 636). The plaintiff satisfied this standard. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, 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 defendant Raul Ruiz appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated October 1, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘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 a lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party ” (Rivers v Jamaica Water Supply Co., 250 AD2d 661, quoting Civello v Grossman, 192 AD2d 636). The plaintiff satisfied this standard. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 383, 678 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avila-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack