Christiano v. Solovieff Realty Co., L.L.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christiano v. Solovieff Realty Co., L.L.C.

62 A.D.3d 535, 878 N.Y.S.2d 620

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

DecidedMay 19, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 62 A.D.3d 535 (Christiano v. Solovieff Realty Co., L.L.C.) 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

Christiano v. Solovieff Realty Co., L.L.C., 62 A.D.3d 535, 878 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered December 4, 2008, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiffs failed to meet the criteria for vacating an automatic dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see Aguilar v Djonvic, 282 AD2d 366 [2001]). Their affidavit of merit was conclusory, they offered no reasonable explanation for their failure to proceed with discovery for nearly two years, they failed even to address the issue of prejudice to defendants, and their lack of activity between the time the case was struck from the calendar and their court-ordered motion to restore fails to rebut the presumption of abandonment. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli and Freedman, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered December 4, 2008, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiffs failed to meet the criteria for vacating an automatic dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see Aguilar v Djonvic, 282 AD2d 366 [2001]). Their affidavit of merit was conclusory, they offered no reasonable explanation for their failure to proceed with discovery for nearly two years, they failed even to address the issue of prejudice to defendants, and their lack of activity between the time the case was struck from the calendar and their court-ordered motion to restore fails to rebut the presumption of abandonment. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 535, 878 N.Y.S.2d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christiano-v-solovieff-realty-co-llc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack