DiPietro v. Shen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiPietro v. Shen

12 A.D.3d 343, 783 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12898

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 343 (DiPietro v. Shen) 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

DiPietro v. Shen, 12 A.D.3d 343, 783 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated February 18, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar and denied his cross motion to deem the action dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Ten months after this action was restored to the trial calendar by a so-ordered stipulation of the parties, it was marked off the trial calendar by order of the Supreme Court dated October 15, 2002. On September 12, 2003, the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the trial calendar. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

A plaintiff seeking to restore a case within one year of it being marked off the calendar need not demonstrate a reasonable excuse, a meritorious action, lack of intent to abandon, or a lack of prejudice to the defendants (see Brannigan v Board of Educ. of Levittown Union Free School Dist., 307 AD2d 945, 946 [2003]; [344]*344Maragos v Getty Petroleum Corp., 303 AD2d 652 [2003]; Acheson v Shepard, 297 AD2d 271 [2002]; Mannino v Huntington Hilton Hotel, 295 AD2d 577 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (see CPLR 2217 [a]). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera 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, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated February 18, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar and denied his cross motion to deem the action dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Ten months after this action was restored to the trial calendar by a so-ordered stipulation of the parties, it was marked off the trial calendar by order of the Supreme Court dated October 15, 2002. On September 12, 2003, the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the trial calendar. The Supreme Court granted the motion.

A plaintiff seeking to restore a case within one year of it being marked off the calendar need not demonstrate a reasonable excuse, a meritorious action, lack of intent to abandon, or a lack of prejudice to the defendants (see Brannigan v Board of Educ. of Levittown Union Free School Dist., 307 AD2d 945, 946 [2003]; [344]*344Maragos v Getty Petroleum Corp., 303 AD2d 652 [2003]; Acheson v Shepard, 297 AD2d 271 [2002]; Mannino v Huntington Hilton Hotel, 295 AD2d 577 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (see CPLR 2217 [a]). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 343, 783 N.Y.S.2d 307, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dipietro-v-shen-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack