Mandelli v. 10 Park Avenue Tenants Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mandelli v. 10 Park Avenue Tenants Corp.

295 A.D.2d 577, 744 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6769

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 577 (Mandelli v. 10 Park Avenue Tenants Corp.) 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

Mandelli v. 10 Park Avenue Tenants Corp., 295 A.D.2d 577, 744 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated January 9, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to file a note of issue, and (2) an order of the same court, dated February 28, 2001, which granted the defendant’s - cross motion to dismiss the complaint purportedly pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, with costs to the plaintiffs, the motion for leave to file a note of issue is granted, and the cross motion is denied.

If no note of issue has been filed, it is improper to mark a case off the calendar (see Wasilewicz v Village of Monroe, 288 AD2d 377). Since no note of issue was filed in this case, CPLR 3404 has no application here (see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190). In view of the foregoing, the plaintiffs should be permitted to file a note of issue. Santucci, J.P., Gold-stein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated January 9, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to file a note of issue, and (2) an order of the same court, dated February 28, 2001, which granted the defendant’s - cross motion to dismiss the complaint purportedly pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, with costs to the plaintiffs, the motion for leave to file a note of issue is granted, and the cross motion is denied.

If no note of issue has been filed, it is improper to mark a case off the calendar (see Wasilewicz v Village of Monroe, 288 AD2d 377). Since no note of issue was filed in this case, CPLR 3404 has no application here (see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190). In view of the foregoing, the plaintiffs should be permitted to file a note of issue. Santucci, J.P., Gold-stein, Luciano, Schmidt and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 577, 744 N.Y.S.2d 703, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandelli-v-10-park-avenue-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack