M. Parisi & Son Construction Co. v. Long Island Obs/Gyn, P.C.

39 A.D.3d 819, 834 N.Y.S.2d 324
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 24, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 819 (M. Parisi & Son Construction Co. v. Long Island Obs/Gyn, P.C.) 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
M. Parisi & Son Construction Co. v. Long Island Obs/Gyn, P.C., 39 A.D.3d 819, 834 N.Y.S.2d 324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

[820]*820In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), entered December 27, 2005, which denied its motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it has been marked “off,” and after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants (see Krichmar v Queens Med. Imaging, P.C., 26 AD3d 417, 418 [2006]; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 130-131 [2001]; Schwartz v Mandelbaum & Gluck, 266 AD2d 273, 274 [1999]).

Here, the plaintiff failed to satisfy all four components of the test. The plaintiffs excuse that it was searching for discovery documents requested by the defendants nearly five years before its motion did not adequately explain the delay (see Swedish v Bourie, 233 AD2d 495, 496 [1996]). Furthermore, by neglecting to provide any evidence of its activities since the dismissal of the action, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment that attaches after a case is dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see Krichmar v Queens Med. Imaging, P.C., supra). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion was properly denied.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P, Ritter, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Clausell v. Giambalvo
2019 NY Slip Op 258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Agli v. O'Connor
92 A.D.3d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
LaMarca v. Scotto Brothers Woodbury Restaurant, Inc.
87 A.D.3d 984 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Vidal v. Ricciardi
81 A.D.3d 635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Vaream v. Corines
78 A.D.3d 933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mooney v. City of New York
78 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Madsguard v. City of New York
78 A.D.3d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Bornstein v. Clearview Properties, Inc.
68 A.D.3d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Botsas v. Grossman
51 A.D.3d 617 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A.D.3d 819, 834 N.Y.S.2d 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-parisi-son-construction-co-v-long-island-obsgyn-pc-nyappdiv-2007.