Braun v. Safdie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braun v. Safdie

2 A.D.3d 473, 767 N.Y.S.2d 882

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 473 (Braun v. Safdie) 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

Braun v. Safdie, 2 A.D.3d 473, 767 N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 23, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

This action was marked off the trial calendar in May 2001 and automatically dismissed in May 2002 pursuant to CPLR 3404. The plaintiffs did not move to restore the action until November 2002. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs were required to establish a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants (see Fernandez v Staten Is. Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Assoc., [474]*474289 AD2d 372 [2001]; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126,131 [2001]). The plaintiffs failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 23, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

This action was marked off the trial calendar in May 2001 and automatically dismissed in May 2002 pursuant to CPLR 3404. The plaintiffs did not move to restore the action until November 2002. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs were required to establish a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants (see Fernandez v Staten Is. Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Assoc., [474]*474289 AD2d 372 [2001]; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126,131 [2001]). The plaintiffs failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 473, 767 N.Y.S.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braun-v-safdie-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack