Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

200 A.D.2d 385, 608 N.Y.S.2d 81

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 385 (Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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

Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 200 A.D.2d 385, 608 N.Y.S.2d 81 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 28, 1992, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, and order of the same court and Justice, entered November 27, 1992, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for reargument and renewal, and adhered to its original determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting this action and have thus failed to support their request to have the action restored to the trial calendar after it had been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see, Todd Co. v Birnbaum, 182 AD2d 505, 505-506). Plaintiffs’ excuses of "law office failure” and confusion concerning a prior order of liquidation and receivership of Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Insurance Co. lack merit. Moreover, plaintiffs failed to take any action even after several notifications and occurrences should have indicated to them that some action on their part was necessary to prevent this case from [386]*386being removed from the calendar and dismissed. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered April 28, 1992, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, and order of the same court and Justice, entered November 27, 1992, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for reargument and renewal, and adhered to its original determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting this action and have thus failed to support their request to have the action restored to the trial calendar after it had been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see, Todd Co. v Birnbaum, 182 AD2d 505, 505-506). Plaintiffs’ excuses of "law office failure” and confusion concerning a prior order of liquidation and receivership of Mutual Fire, Marine and Inland Insurance Co. lack merit. Moreover, plaintiffs failed to take any action even after several notifications and occurrences should have indicated to them that some action on their part was necessary to prevent this case from [386]*386being removed from the calendar and dismissed. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 385, 608 N.Y.S.2d 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-fire-marine-inland-insurance-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack