Maurice v. Mahon

269 A.D.2d 186, 702 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1160
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Maurice v. Mahon. Read the opinion of the Court — 239 A.D.2d 188

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [187]*187County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered April 22, 1999, as amended by order of the same court and Justice entered May 18, 1999, which granted plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly restored upon a showing of an absence of prejudice to defendants attributable to the eight-month delay between the CPLR 3404 automatic dismissal of the action and plaintiffs motion to restore, a reasonable excuse for the delay, a meritorious cause of action and lack of intent to abandon the action (see, Salzano v Mastrantonio, 267 AD2d 5). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

Maurice v. Mahon, 269 A.D.2d 186, 702 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

269 A.D.2d 186 (Maurice v. Mahon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Salzano v. Mastrantonio
267 A.D.2d 5 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)