Jackson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. New York City Housing Authority

259 A.D.2d 383, 687 N.Y.S.2d 128

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 383 (Jackson v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Jackson v. New York City Housing Authority, 259 A.D.2d 383, 687 N.Y.S.2d 128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 14, 1998, which granted plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking restoration and no intent to abandon the action upon the basis of plaintiffs attorney’s unrefuted representation that the case had been marked off the calendar by another Justice because of plaintiffs incarceration without prejudice to its restoration upon plaintiffs release. Such circumstance, and the fact that disclosure had been completed before the action was marked off, warranted dispensing with the usual requirement of demonstrating some off-calendar litigation activity (see, e.g., Weiss v City of New York, 247 AD2d 239, 241). Completion of disclosure was also sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, lack of prejudice (compare, Jeffs v Janessa, Inc., 226 AD2d 504, lv dismissed 88 NY2d 1037), and appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the delay. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Lerner, 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 (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 14, 1998, which granted plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking restoration and no intent to abandon the action upon the basis of plaintiffs attorney’s unrefuted representation that the case had been marked off the calendar by another Justice because of plaintiffs incarceration without prejudice to its restoration upon plaintiffs release. Such circumstance, and the fact that disclosure had been completed before the action was marked off, warranted dispensing with the usual requirement of demonstrating some off-calendar litigation activity (see, e.g., Weiss v City of New York, 247 AD2d 239, 241). Completion of disclosure was also sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, lack of prejudice (compare, Jeffs v Janessa, Inc., 226 AD2d 504, lv dismissed 88 NY2d 1037), and appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the delay. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 383, 687 N.Y.S.2d 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack