Goldstein v. Silverstein
89 A.D.3d 497, 932 N.Y.2d 341
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 2011·Published
Opinion
[498]*498Plaintiffs improperly argue for the first time on appeal that dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 was incorrect because the striking of the action from the trial calendar had returned the case to its pre-note of issue status (see Nieman v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 4 AD3d 255, 255 [2004]). Plaintiffs neither made a motion to restore the matter to the calendar within one year nor proffered an affidavit demonstrating that he had a meritorious cause of action. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Freedman and Richter, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Goldstein v. Silverstein, 89 A.D.3d 497, 932 N.Y.2d 341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
89 A.D.3d 497 (Goldstein v. Silverstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Nieman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
4 A.D.3d 255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)