Bello v. Werner
This text of 195 N.Y.S.3d 808 (Bello v. Werner) 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.
Opinion
| Bello v Werner |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 04989 |
| Decided on October 4, 2023 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 4, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
BARRY E. WARHIT
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
2021-07060
(Index No. 2954/07)
v
Wesley Werner, appellant.
Kenneth Cooperstein, Centerport, NY, for appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for the partition and sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christopher G. Quinn, J.), dated April 20, 2021. The order denied the defendant's unopposed motion to restore the action to the active calendar.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant's motion to restore the action to the active calendar is granted.
It is undisputed that this action was in pre-note of issue status when, due to an apparent administrative error, it was mistakenly marked as settled and disposed in the Supreme Court's electronic tracking system. As the action was never formally dismissed, the defendant followed the appropriate procedure in moving to restore the action to the active calendar (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Salem, 191 AD3d 921, 921-922; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Mehrnia, 143 AD3d 946, 947; Khaolaead v Leisure Video, 18 AD3d 820, 821). Under the circumstances, the court erred in denying the defendant's unopposed motion to restore the action to the active calendar (see Long-Waithe v Kings Apparel Inc., 10 AD3d 413, 414; Baez v Kayantas, 298 AD2d 416, 416-417; Hernandez v City of New York, 290 AD2d 416, 416; see also Bank of N.Y. v Arden, 140 AD3d 1099, 1100).
BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, WARHIT and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
195 N.Y.S.3d 808, 220 A.D.3d 692, 2023 NY Slip Op 04989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bello-v-werner-nyappdiv-2023.