Corporate Visions, Inc. v. Sterling Promotional Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corporate Visions, Inc. v. Sterling Promotional Corp.

21 A.D.3d 983, 800 N.Y.S.2d 849

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 983 (Corporate Visions, Inc. v. Sterling Promotional Corp.) 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

Corporate Visions, Inc. v. Sterling Promotional Corp., 21 A.D.3d 983, 800 N.Y.S.2d 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered September 16, 2004, which denied its motion to “restore” the action to active status.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion is granted.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion to “restore” this pre-note of issue case to active status (see Long-Waithe v Kings Apparel Inc., 10 AD3d 413 [2004]; see also Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190 [2001]; Kallicharan v Coombes Props., Inc., 7 AD3d 578 [2004]; cf. 123X Corp. v McKenzie, 7 AD3d 769, 769-770 [2004]). Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered September 16, 2004, which denied its motion to “restore” the action to active status.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion is granted.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion to “restore” this pre-note of issue case to active status (see Long-Waithe v Kings Apparel Inc., 10 AD3d 413 [2004]; see also Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190 [2001]; Kallicharan v Coombes Props., Inc., 7 AD3d 578 [2004]; cf. 123X Corp. v McKenzie, 7 AD3d 769, 769-770 [2004]). Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 983, 800 N.Y.S.2d 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corporate-visions-inc-v-sterling-promotional-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack