Maharaj v. LaRoche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maharaj v. LaRoche

69 A.D.3d 684, 891 N.Y.2d 653

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 684 (Maharaj v. LaRoche) 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

Maharaj v. LaRoche, 69 A.D.3d 684, 891 N.Y.2d 653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff moved to restore this action to the calendar after it was, in effect, dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to file a timely note of issue pursuant to a compliance order dated April 15, 2008. Notably, the compliance order specifically advised that it did not constitute a CPLR 3216 notice. Thus, the order could not be deemed a 90-day demand to file a note of issue, which is a precondition to dismissal under CPLR 3216 (see CPLR 3216 [b] [3]; Ratway v Donnenfeld, 43 AD3d 465 [2007]; Heifetz v Godoy, 38 AD3d 605 [2007]; Murray v Smith Corp., 296 AD2d 445, 447 [2002]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the calendar should have been granted. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff moved to restore this action to the calendar after it was, in effect, dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to file a timely note of issue pursuant to a compliance order dated April 15, 2008. Notably, the compliance order specifically advised that it did not constitute a CPLR 3216 notice. Thus, the order could not be deemed a 90-day demand to file a note of issue, which is a precondition to dismissal under CPLR 3216 (see CPLR 3216 [b] [3]; Ratway v Donnenfeld, 43 AD3d 465 [2007]; Heifetz v Godoy, 38 AD3d 605 [2007]; Murray v Smith Corp., 296 AD2d 445, 447 [2002]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the calendar should have been granted. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 684, 891 N.Y.2d 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maharaj-v-laroche-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack