Nagle v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nagle v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

7 A.D.3d 768, 776 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7311

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

DecidedMay 24, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 768 (Nagle v. Yonkers Contracting Co.) 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

Nagle v. Yonkers Contracting Co., 7 A.D.3d 768, 776 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated August 1, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar and, in effect, denied its cross motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to enlarge the time to settle a judgment in connection with a prior order of the same court dated February 15, 2002, granting its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the cross motion is granted.

Following the issuance of the order dated February 15, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directed the parties to “settle judgment,” the parties’ actions reflected their belief, albeit mistaken, that a judgment was settled pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Indeed, the plaintiff appealed from the order and also served and filed a motion for leave to renew/reargue, thus undermining his claim that he believed that the motion was abandoned. Furthermore, the interests of justice demand that the Supreme Court not be burdened with the trial of an action which has been found to be meritless (see Russo v City of New York, 206 AD2d 355 [1994]). A contrary result would not bring the “repose to court proceedings” (Russo v City of New York, supra at 356) that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was designed to effectuate, and would waste judicial resources. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated August 1, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar and, in effect, denied its cross motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to enlarge the time to settle a judgment in connection with a prior order of the same court dated February 15, 2002, granting its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the cross motion is granted.

Following the issuance of the order dated February 15, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directed the parties to “settle judgment,” the parties’ actions reflected their belief, albeit mistaken, that a judgment was settled pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Indeed, the plaintiff appealed from the order and also served and filed a motion for leave to renew/reargue, thus undermining his claim that he believed that the motion was abandoned. Furthermore, the interests of justice demand that the Supreme Court not be burdened with the trial of an action which has been found to be meritless (see Russo v City of New York, 206 AD2d 355 [1994]). A contrary result would not bring the “repose to court proceedings” (Russo v City of New York, supra at 356) that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was designed to effectuate, and would waste judicial resources. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 768, 776 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagle-v-yonkers-contracting-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack