Lucious v. Rutland Nursing Home

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lucious v. Rutland Nursing Home

2 A.D.3d 412, 767 N.Y.S.2d 792

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 412 (Lucious v. Rutland Nursing Home) 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

Lucious v. Rutland Nursing Home, 2 A.D.3d 412, 767 N.Y.S.2d 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated May 3, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion to “restore” the action to active status.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue case (see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190 [2001]). Furthermore, there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor was there an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion to “restore” the action to active status (see Torres v Nu-Way Mach. Corp. Co., 296 AD2d 545 [2002]; Johnson v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 295 AD2d 567 [2002]; Farley v Danaher Corp., 295 AD2d 559 [2002]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Mastro, 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 personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated May 3, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion to “restore” the action to active status.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue case (see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190 [2001]). Furthermore, there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor was there an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion to “restore” the action to active status (see Torres v Nu-Way Mach. Corp. Co., 296 AD2d 545 [2002]; Johnson v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 295 AD2d 567 [2002]; Farley v Danaher Corp., 295 AD2d 559 [2002]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 412, 767 N.Y.S.2d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucious-v-rutland-nursing-home-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack