Jarrett v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jarrett v. City of New York

301 A.D.2d 391, 752 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 101

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 391 (Jarrett 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

Jarrett v. City of New York, 301 A.D.2d 391, 752 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion to, inter alia, restore this action to active status, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted to the extent of restoring the matter to the active pre-note of issue calendar, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

As conceded by defendant, the motion court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to active status. Since no note of issue had been filed, the court had no authority to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 and plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to active status should have been granted (Jiles v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 307; see also Pearl v City of New York, 293 AD2d 406; Koutsoupakis v City of New York, 292 AD2d 191; Johnson v Sam Minskoff & [392]*392Sons, 287 AD2d 233). Concur — Buckley, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion to, inter alia, restore this action to active status, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted to the extent of restoring the matter to the active pre-note of issue calendar, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

As conceded by defendant, the motion court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to active status. Since no note of issue had been filed, the court had no authority to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 and plaintiff’s motion to restore the case to active status should have been granted (Jiles v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 307; see also Pearl v City of New York, 293 AD2d 406; Koutsoupakis v City of New York, 292 AD2d 191; Johnson v Sam Minskoff & [392]*392Sons, 287 AD2d 233). Concur — Buckley, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 391, 752 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarrett-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack