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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 1, 2003·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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.

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

Pincite

2 A.D.3d 412 (Lucious v. Rutland Nursing Home) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related