Nunez v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nunez v. Goodman

186 A.D.2d 521

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 521 (Nunez v. Goodman) 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

Nunez v. Goodman, 186 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered June 10, 1991, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for an order of dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants had moved for an order striking plaintiff’s note of issue and certificate of readiness on the ground that the action was not ready for trial. The court signed a short-order form dated August 24, 1989 in which the decretal portion was left blank. Next to "Answering Affidavits — Exhibits” was a handwritten notation "Not Answered”. More than a year later, defendants moved for an order of dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404.

[522]*522The court properly held that defendants could not rely on the August 24 order since it contained no judicial determination that the matter was stricken from the trial calendar (CPLR 2219). Since the case was not stricken from the trial calendar, there was no basis to invoke CPLR 3404. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered June 10, 1991, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for an order of dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants had moved for an order striking plaintiff’s note of issue and certificate of readiness on the ground that the action was not ready for trial. The court signed a short-order form dated August 24, 1989 in which the decretal portion was left blank. Next to "Answering Affidavits — Exhibits” was a handwritten notation "Not Answered”. More than a year later, defendants moved for an order of dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404.

[522]*522The court properly held that defendants could not rely on the August 24 order since it contained no judicial determination that the matter was stricken from the trial calendar (CPLR 2219). Since the case was not stricken from the trial calendar, there was no basis to invoke CPLR 3404. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-v-goodman-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack