Chambers v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chambers v. City of New York

111 A.D.3d 593, 974 N.Y.S.2d 119

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 593 (Chambers 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

Chambers v. City of New York, 111 A.D.3d 593, 974 N.Y.S.2d 119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which denied, without prejudice, his unopposed motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar is granted.

It is undisputed that the action was marked off the trial calendar on December 1, 2010. By electing to mark the case off the trial calendar pursuant to CFLR 3404, the trial court set the course for restoration (see Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 135 [2001]). Since the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the trial calendar within one year after the date it was marked off, restoration was automatic (see Ross v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 54 AD3d 370, 371 [2008]; Kohn v Citigroup, Inc., 29 AD3d 530, 532 [2006]; Hirsch v Monroe Bus Corp., 24 AD3d 609 [2005]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar should have been granted. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, 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, Queens County (Plug, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which denied, without prejudice, his unopposed motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar is granted.

It is undisputed that the action was marked off the trial calendar on December 1, 2010. By electing to mark the case off the trial calendar pursuant to CFLR 3404, the trial court set the course for restoration (see Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 135 [2001]). Since the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the trial calendar within one year after the date it was marked off, restoration was automatic (see Ross v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 54 AD3d 370, 371 [2008]; Kohn v Citigroup, Inc., 29 AD3d 530, 532 [2006]; Hirsch v Monroe Bus Corp., 24 AD3d 609 [2005]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar should have been granted. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 593, 974 N.Y.S.2d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack