Cordero v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cordero v. Singh

295 A.D.2d 154, 743 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5919

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

DecidedJune 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 154 (Cordero v. Singh) 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

Cordero v. Singh, 295 A.D.2d 154, 743 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about May 7, 2001, which granted plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the compliance calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since no note of issue has been filed in this case, defendants, or the court, could have served a 90-day demand to file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216. A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3404, however, applies only to delay after a note of issue has been filed (see, Johnson v Sam Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937). Under the circumstances, we perceive no reason to disturb the motion court’s exercise of discretion in [155]*155restoring the case to the court’s compliance calendar. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered on or about May 7, 2001, which granted plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the compliance calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since no note of issue has been filed in this case, defendants, or the court, could have served a 90-day demand to file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216. A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3404, however, applies only to delay after a note of issue has been filed (see, Johnson v Sam Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937). Under the circumstances, we perceive no reason to disturb the motion court’s exercise of discretion in [155]*155restoring the case to the court’s compliance calendar. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 154, 743 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordero-v-singh-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack