Cobos v. Phieffer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cobos v. Phieffer

8 A.D.3d 424, 778 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 424 (Cobos v. Phieffer) 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

Cobos v. Phieffer, 8 A.D.3d 424, 778 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated September 4, 2003, which denied their motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

“A party seeking to restore to the trial calendar an action which has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party” (McCarthy v Bagner, 271 AD2d 509 [2000]). The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at a trial conference on June 24, 2002, and thus failed to satisfy the standard. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to restore. Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Luciano, Crane and Spolzino, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated September 4, 2003, which denied their motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

“A party seeking to restore to the trial calendar an action which has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party” (McCarthy v Bagner, 271 AD2d 509 [2000]). The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at a trial conference on June 24, 2002, and thus failed to satisfy the standard. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to restore. Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Luciano, Crane and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 424, 778 N.Y.S.2d 318, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobos-v-phieffer-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack