Kamara v. Ambert

89 A.D.3d 612, 933 N.Y.2d 38
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[613] A party seeking to have a case restored to the trial calendar must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, a lack of intent to abandon the action and the absence of prejudice to the opposing party (see e.g. Benjamin v Teixeira, 78 AD3d 434 [2010]). Here, although the record demonstrates that plaintiff had communicated with his attorney in the one year and nine months after the action had been struck from the trial calendar, he failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking to restore the action and failed to demonstrate that restoration of the case, fifteen years after the underlying events took place, would not prejudice defendants (see Almanzar v Rye Ridge Realty Co., 249 AD2d 128 [1998]). Concur — Moskowitz, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32268(U).]

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

Kamara v. Ambert, 89 A.D.3d 612, 933 N.Y.2d 38 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 612 (Kamara v. Ambert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

White v. City of New York
2020 NY Slip Op 05477 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Lopez v. Podgurski
38 Misc. 3d 1015 (New York County Courts, 2013)
Padded Wagon, Inc. v. Associates Commercial Corp.
92 A.D.3d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)