Goodstein Construction Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodstein Construction Corp. v. City of New York

248 A.D.2d 166, 670 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2376

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 166 (Goodstein Construction Corp. 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

Goodstein Construction Corp. v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 166, 670 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.), entered October 23, 1996, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 25, 1997, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[167]*167The motion to vacate dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 was properly granted in light of the plaintiffs excusable lack of awareness that the case had been marked off the calendar at a time when an appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, the activity during the period the case was off calendar, the lack of prejudice to defendant as a result of the delay in restoring the case, and the merit to the cause of action (see, Endres v Mingles Rest., 242 AD2d 455).

The denial of the motion for renewal based upon the incapacity of Mr. Gleidman was proper since there was evidence that this witness, as well as a number of other witnesses privy to the same information, had already been deposed.

Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Fern Fisher-Brandveen, J.), entered October 23, 1996, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 25, 1997, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[167]*167The motion to vacate dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 was properly granted in light of the plaintiffs excusable lack of awareness that the case had been marked off the calendar at a time when an appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, the activity during the period the case was off calendar, the lack of prejudice to defendant as a result of the delay in restoring the case, and the merit to the cause of action (see, Endres v Mingles Rest., 242 AD2d 455).

The denial of the motion for renewal based upon the incapacity of Mr. Gleidman was proper since there was evidence that this witness, as well as a number of other witnesses privy to the same information, had already been deposed.

Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 166, 670 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodstein-construction-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack