Moye v. City of New York

168 A.D.2d 342
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 18, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 342 (Moye v. City of New York) 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
Moye v. City of New York, 168 A.D.2d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered January 31, 1990, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a default and restore this action to the Trial Calendar, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs sought damages from defendant for the wrongful death of their son who committed suicide on Rikers Island in 1982. The action was commenced in May 1983. The action was marked off calendar on March 20, 1987, for plaintiffs’ failure to attend a pretrial conference. Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that he had hired a calendar checking service and regularly read the New York Law Journal, but only learned that the case had been marked off in November 1989, at which time the motion was brought to vacate the default.

Cases which are not diligently pursued will be dismissed automatically one year after stricken from the calendar (CPLR 3404; Rosser v Scacalossi, 140 AD2d 318). The presump[343]*343tion that an action so dismissed has been abandoned is rebut-table, and the action may be restored upon a showing of a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, a lack of prejudice to the opposing party, and a lack of intent to abandon the action (Rodriguez v Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 AD2d 720, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 874).

Plaintiffs did not satisfy all these criteria. The attorney’s affirmation accompanied by copies of the pleadings was insufficient to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action; the suicide report annexed to the papers implies neither negligence nor causation (see, e.g., Bergan v Home for Incurables, 124 AD2d 517). Nor did counsel present a sufficient explanation to excuse the three-year delay in moving to restore the action. Finally, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that defendant has not been prejudiced by the delay. Concur—Ross, J. P., Carro, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

Zabari v. City of New York
242 A.D.2d 15 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Weiss v. City of New York
247 A.D.2d 239 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Boger v. City of New York
233 A.D.2d 182 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Mucciola v. City of New York
207 A.D.2d 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Dublar v. Miller
196 A.D.2d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Todd Co. v. Birnbaum
182 A.D.2d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Perez v. New York City Housing Authority
182 A.D.2d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Hatcher v. Cassanova
180 A.D.2d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 A.D.2d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moye-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1990.