Murray v. T.W. Smith Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray v. T.W. Smith Corporation

286 A.D.2d 377, 728 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7997

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

DecidedAugust 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 377 (Murray v. T.W. Smith Corporation) 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

Murray v. T.W. Smith Corporation, 286 A.D.2d 377, 728 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant Esab Group, Inc., d/b/a L-Tec Welding & Cutting Systems, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated May 25, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in restoring this action. Since no note of issue had been filed, this action could not be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190; P. Cubed Enters. v Roach, 265 AD2d 537), and the appellant did not demonstrate any other basis for dismissal. Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 third-party defendant Esab Group, Inc., d/b/a L-Tec Welding & Cutting Systems, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated May 25, 2000, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to restore the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in restoring this action. Since no note of issue had been filed, this action could not be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190; P. Cubed Enters. v Roach, 265 AD2d 537), and the appellant did not demonstrate any other basis for dismissal. Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 377, 728 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-tw-smith-corporation-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack