Madsguard v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madsguard v. City of New York

78 A.D.3d 666, 909 N.Y.S.2d 667

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 666 (Madsguard 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

Madsguard v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 666, 909 N.Y.S.2d 667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated November 13, 2009, which denied its motion to restore the third-party action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A case marked off the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 and subsequently dismissed after one year may be restored to the trial calendar provided that the party seeking to restore the case establishes the following: (1) a meritorious cause of action or defense, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the claims or counterclaims asserted in the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the opposing party (see Swanson v Eichler, 68 AD3d 975, 975-976 [2009]; Williams v D’Angelo, 24 AD3d 538, 539 [2005]; Neidereger v Hidden Park Apts., 306 AD2d 392 [2003]). Here, the third-party defendant failed to demonstrate that it satisfied any of the four components necessary to restore the third-party action, in which it asserted a counterclaim, to the trial calendar (see Karwowski v Wonder Works Constr., 73 AD3d 1133 [2010]; Leinas v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 72 AD3d 905, 906 [2010]; M. Parisi & Son Constr. Co., Inc. v Long Is. Obs/Gyn, PC., 39 AD3d 819, 820 [2007]; Williams v D’Angelo, 24 AD 3d at 539). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.

The respondents’ remaining contention need not be addressed in light of our determination. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, 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 third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated November 13, 2009, which denied its motion to restore the third-party action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A case marked off the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 and subsequently dismissed after one year may be restored to the trial calendar provided that the party seeking to restore the case establishes the following: (1) a meritorious cause of action or defense, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the claims or counterclaims asserted in the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the opposing party (see Swanson v Eichler, 68 AD3d 975, 975-976 [2009]; Williams v D’Angelo, 24 AD3d 538, 539 [2005]; Neidereger v Hidden Park Apts., 306 AD2d 392 [2003]). Here, the third-party defendant failed to demonstrate that it satisfied any of the four components necessary to restore the third-party action, in which it asserted a counterclaim, to the trial calendar (see Karwowski v Wonder Works Constr., 73 AD3d 1133 [2010]; Leinas v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 72 AD3d 905, 906 [2010]; M. Parisi & Son Constr. Co., Inc. v Long Is. Obs/Gyn, PC., 39 AD3d 819, 820 [2007]; Williams v D’Angelo, 24 AD 3d at 539). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.

The respondents’ remaining contention need not be addressed in light of our determination. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 666, 909 N.Y.S.2d 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madsguard-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack