Kanner v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kanner v. Rubin

1 A.D.2d 569, 767 N.Y.S.2d 642

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

DecidedNovember 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 569 (Kanner v. Rubin) 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

Kanner v. Rubin, 1 A.D.2d 569, 767 N.Y.S.2d 642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated July 16, 2002, which denied her motion to restore the case to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party moving to restore an action to the trial calendar more than one year after it was stricken from the calendar, after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must establish (1) a meritorious cause of action, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the defendant (see Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126 [2001]; Fernandez v Staten Is. Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Assoc., 289 AD2d 372 [2001]). The plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated July 16, 2002, which denied her motion to restore the case to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party moving to restore an action to the trial calendar more than one year after it was stricken from the calendar, after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must establish (1) a meritorious cause of action, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the defendant (see Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126 [2001]; Fernandez v Staten Is. Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Assoc., 289 AD2d 372 [2001]). The plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 569, 767 N.Y.S.2d 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanner-v-rubin-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack