Klotz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klotz v. City of New York

303 A.D.2d 205, 755 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2390

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 205 (Klotz 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

Klotz v. City of New York, 303 A.D.2d 205, 755 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered January 24, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion “to restore this matter to active status on the Court’s docket,” unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the court directed to entertain further proceedings. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 23, 2001, which, insofar as appeal-able, denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

“[M]arking a case off a pre-note of issue calendar is simply not a penalty available to the court when the plaintiff fails to appear at a pre-note of issue conference or other pre-note of issue proceeding.” (Jiles v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 307, 307 [2002].) Defendants commendably concede that the court erred in denying plaintiffs motion to restore this prenote case to active status. Plaintiffs motion to restore the action to “active status” should have been granted “since there was never any authority to put it in inactive status in the first place” (id.). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered January 24, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion “to restore this matter to active status on the Court’s docket,” unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the court directed to entertain further proceedings. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 23, 2001, which, insofar as appeal-able, denied plaintiffs motion to renew, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

“[M]arking a case off a pre-note of issue calendar is simply not a penalty available to the court when the plaintiff fails to appear at a pre-note of issue conference or other pre-note of issue proceeding.” (Jiles v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 307, 307 [2002].) Defendants commendably concede that the court erred in denying plaintiffs motion to restore this prenote case to active status. Plaintiffs motion to restore the action to “active status” should have been granted “since there was never any authority to put it in inactive status in the first place” (id.). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 205, 755 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klotz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack