Georgetown Mews Owners Corp. v. Campus Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Georgetown Mews Owners Corp. v. Campus Associates

283 A.D.2d 608, 725 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5462

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 608 (Georgetown Mews Owners Corp. v. Campus Associates) 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

Georgetown Mews Owners Corp. v. Campus Associates, 283 A.D.2d 608, 725 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and professional malpractice, the defendant Shanholt, Marinoff, Fleiss & Co., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered April 14, 2000, which denied its motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 for neglect to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since there is no evidence that a note of issue placing the action on the court’s trial calendar was filed (see, CPLR 3402), the court properly denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190; P. Cubed Enters. v Roach, 265 AD2d 537, 538; Davila v Galarza, 221 AD2d 308). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 breach of contract and professional malpractice, the defendant Shanholt, Marinoff, Fleiss & Co., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered April 14, 2000, which denied its motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 for neglect to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since there is no evidence that a note of issue placing the action on the court’s trial calendar was filed (see, CPLR 3402), the court properly denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190; P. Cubed Enters. v Roach, 265 AD2d 537, 538; Davila v Galarza, 221 AD2d 308). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 608, 725 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgetown-mews-owners-corp-v-campus-associates-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack