Miller v. Duffy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Duffy

284 A.D.2d 380, 725 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6050

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 380 (Miller v. Duffy) 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

Miller v. Duffy, 284 A.D.2d 380, 725 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for specific performance of an option to purchase a cooperative apartment, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated December 22, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to restore the action is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

When the plaintiffs failed to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference, the action was marked “off” and ultimately dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to restore the action. We reverse insofar as appealed from.

For the reasons stated in Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv. (282 AD2d 190), CPLR 3404 is not applicable because the action was not on the trial calendar. Thus, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to restore the action is granted. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for specific performance of an option to purchase a cooperative apartment, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated December 22, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to restore the action is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

When the plaintiffs failed to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference, the action was marked “off” and ultimately dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to restore the action. We reverse insofar as appealed from.

For the reasons stated in Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv. (282 AD2d 190), CPLR 3404 is not applicable because the action was not on the trial calendar. Thus, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to restore the action is granted. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 380, 725 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-duffy-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack