Metral v. Bonifacio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Metral v. Bonifacio

309 A.D.2d 724, 766 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11259

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 724 (Metral v. Bonifacio) 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

Metral v. Bonifacio, 309 A.D.2d 724, 766 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered September 25, 2002, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the Clerk’s dismissal of the case on May 1, 2002 and to restore it to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The law office failure leading to the dismissal was not excusable. The default was part of a pattern of dilatory behavior, as evidenced by plaintiff’s three prior motions to restore, which were granted (see Rudes v Magna Stables Co., 277 AD2d 63 [2000]; Campenni v Ridgecroft Estates Owners, 261 AD2d 496, 497 [1999]; Fink Weinberger v Rosenkrantz, 252 AD2d 368 [1998]). Twelve years having transpired since the accident and discovery not having been commenced, defendants would be severely prejudiced by restoration (see Tortorello v Carlin, 286 AD2d 628 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered September 25, 2002, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the Clerk’s dismissal of the case on May 1, 2002 and to restore it to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The law office failure leading to the dismissal was not excusable. The default was part of a pattern of dilatory behavior, as evidenced by plaintiff’s three prior motions to restore, which were granted (see Rudes v Magna Stables Co., 277 AD2d 63 [2000]; Campenni v Ridgecroft Estates Owners, 261 AD2d 496, 497 [1999]; Fink Weinberger v Rosenkrantz, 252 AD2d 368 [1998]). Twelve years having transpired since the accident and discovery not having been commenced, defendants would be severely prejudiced by restoration (see Tortorello v Carlin, 286 AD2d 628 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 724, 766 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metral-v-bonifacio-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack