Ford v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ford v. City of New York

135 A.D.3d 410, 21 N.Y.S.3d 877

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2016

Docket16523 304128/09

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.3d 410 (Ford v. City of New York) 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

Ford v. City of New York, 135 A.D.3d 410, 21 N.Y.S.3d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the case as abandoned, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to restore the case to the calendar upon his payment to defendant of $600 in costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs cross motion to restore the case to the calendar more than one year after it had been marked off (see Kaufman v Bauer, 36 AD3d 481, 482 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiff showed a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking to restore the matter to the calendar, an absence of intent to abandon prosecution, and a lack of prejudice to defendant (see id.).

We note that defendant does not contest that plaintiff showed a potentially meritorious cause of action based on evidence that he broke his ankle after tripping on a broken sidewalk curb of which the City had prior written notice. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered July 28, 2014, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the case as abandoned, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to restore the case to the calendar upon his payment to defendant of $600 in costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs cross motion to restore the case to the calendar more than one year after it had been marked off (see Kaufman v Bauer, 36 AD3d 481, 482 [1st Dept 2007]). Plaintiff showed a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking to restore the matter to the calendar, an absence of intent to abandon prosecution, and a lack of prejudice to defendant (see id.).

We note that defendant does not contest that plaintiff showed a potentially meritorious cause of action based on evidence that he broke his ankle after tripping on a broken sidewalk curb of which the City had prior written notice. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.3d 410, 21 N.Y.S.3d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack