Dramer v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dramer v. Board of Education

134 A.D.2d 478, 521 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50673

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 478 (Dramer v. Board of Education) 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

Dramer v. Board of Education, 134 A.D.2d 478, 521 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for an alleged violation of the Education Law, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Oppido, J.), dated November 12, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 and 3404 to vacate an automatic dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in restoring this action to the calendar under the circumstances herein (see, CPLR 3404; McLaughlin, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, 1987 Supp Pamph, CPLR 3404, at 41; Boyle v Krebs & Schulz Motors, 18 AD2d 1010). The defendants conceded, and a review of the record confirms, that the plaintiff set forth a meritorious cause of action and established a reasonable excuse for the delay (see, CPLR 2005) and an intent not to abandon this matter (cf., Ornstein v Kentucky Fried Chicken, 121 AD2d 610). There has been no prejudice to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs motion was properly granted. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Spatt, 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 an alleged violation of the Education Law, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Oppido, J.), dated November 12, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 and 3404 to vacate an automatic dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in restoring this action to the calendar under the circumstances herein (see, CPLR 3404; McLaughlin, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, 1987 Supp Pamph, CPLR 3404, at 41; Boyle v Krebs & Schulz Motors, 18 AD2d 1010). The defendants conceded, and a review of the record confirms, that the plaintiff set forth a meritorious cause of action and established a reasonable excuse for the delay (see, CPLR 2005) and an intent not to abandon this matter (cf., Ornstein v Kentucky Fried Chicken, 121 AD2d 610). There has been no prejudice to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs motion was properly granted. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 478, 521 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dramer-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack