Mannino v. Huntington Hilton Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mannino v. Huntington Hilton Hotel

295 A.D.2d 577, 744 N.Y.S.2d 705, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6745

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 577 (Mannino v. Huntington Hilton Hotel) 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

Mannino v. Huntington Hilton Hotel, 295 A.D.2d 577, 744 N.Y.S.2d 705, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 1, 2001, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

A plaintiff seeking restoration of an action within one year of it being marked off the trial calendar need not demonstrate a reasonable excuse, a meritorious action, lack of intent to abandon, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants (see Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 133). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs motion to restore the action, since it was made within one year after the action was marked off the calendar (see Polvino v Island Group Admin., 289 AD2d 315, 316). Prudenti, P.J., O’Brien, McGinity 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 1, 2001, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

A plaintiff seeking restoration of an action within one year of it being marked off the trial calendar need not demonstrate a reasonable excuse, a meritorious action, lack of intent to abandon, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants (see Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 133). Thus, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs motion to restore the action, since it was made within one year after the action was marked off the calendar (see Polvino v Island Group Admin., 289 AD2d 315, 316). Prudenti, P.J., O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 577, 744 N.Y.S.2d 705, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mannino-v-huntington-hilton-hotel-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack