Borrelli v. Maye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Borrelli v. Maye

293 A.D.2d 506, 739 N.Y.S.2d 826, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3515

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

DecidedApril 8, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 506 (Borrelli v. Maye) 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

Borrelli v. Maye, 293 A.D.2d 506, 739 N.Y.S.2d 826, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 1, 2001, which denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it was stricken, and after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must establish all of the following: (1) a meritorious cause of action, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the defendant (see Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126; McCarthy v Bagner, 271 AD2d 509). The plaintiff failed to establish all of these elements. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, S. Miller, Friedmann and Adams, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 1, 2001, which denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it was stricken, and after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must establish all of the following: (1) a meritorious cause of action, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the defendant (see Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126; McCarthy v Bagner, 271 AD2d 509). The plaintiff failed to establish all of these elements. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, S. Miller, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 506, 739 N.Y.S.2d 826, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borrelli-v-maye-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack