Butler v. Board of Trustees New York City Fire Department Pension Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butler v. Board of Trustees New York City Fire Department Pension Fund

91 A.D.3d 867, 936 N.Y.2d 908

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[868] It is undisputed that on July 29, 2009, this proceeding was “marked off’ the calendar after the petitioner failed to appear at the Supreme Court’s calendar call. Contrary to the respondents’ contention, CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue proceeding (see Varricchio v Sterling, 86 AD3d 535, 536 [2011]; Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2010]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 199 [2001]). Furthermore, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor an order dismissing the petition pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Varricchio v Sterling, 86 AD3d at 536; Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d at 1138; Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 62 AD3d 741, 742 [2009]; Burdick v Marcus, 17 AD3d 388 [2005]). Accordingly, upon reargument, the petitioner’s motion to restore the proceeding to active status should have been granted. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ, concur.

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

[868] It is undisputed that on July 29, 2009, this proceeding was “marked off’ the calendar after the petitioner failed to appear at the Supreme Court’s calendar call. Contrary to the respondents’ contention, CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue proceeding (see Varricchio v Sterling, 86 AD3d 535, 536 [2011]; Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2010]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 199 [2001]). Furthermore, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor an order dismissing the petition pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Varricchio v Sterling, 86 AD3d at 536; Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d at 1138; Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 62 AD3d 741, 742 [2009]; Burdick v Marcus, 17 AD3d 388 [2005]). Accordingly, upon reargument, the petitioner’s motion to restore the proceeding to active status should have been granted. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ, concur.

Butler v. Board of Trustees New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, 91 A.D.3d 867, 936 N.Y.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

91 A.D.3d 867 (Butler v. Board of Trustees New York City Fire Department Pension Fund) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related