Mahon v. Rothschild

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mahon v. Rothschild

273 A.D.2d 23, 708 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6359

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

DecidedJune 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 23 (Mahon v. Rothschild) 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

Mahon v. Rothschild, 273 A.D.2d 23, 708 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 9, 1999, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore this action to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted.

Although plaintiff failed to move to restore this action within one year after it was marked off the court’s calendar (see, CPLR 3404), she demonstrated that she had a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking to restore the action to the calendar, a lack of prejudice to defendant, and a lack of intent to abandon the action (see, Rodriguez v Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 AD2d 720, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 874). We note in this regard that plaintiffs allegations were uncontroverted as defendant did not oppose the motion. Accordingly, Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the requested relief. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 9, 1999, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore this action to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted.

Although plaintiff failed to move to restore this action within one year after it was marked off the court’s calendar (see, CPLR 3404), she demonstrated that she had a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking to restore the action to the calendar, a lack of prejudice to defendant, and a lack of intent to abandon the action (see, Rodriguez v Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 AD2d 720, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 874). We note in this regard that plaintiffs allegations were uncontroverted as defendant did not oppose the motion. Accordingly, Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the requested relief. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 23, 708 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahon-v-rothschild-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack