O'Dell v. Stornelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Dell v. Stornelli

98 A.D.2d 957, 470 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21281

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 957 (O'Dell v. Stornelli) 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

O'Dell v. Stornelli, 98 A.D.2d 957, 470 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Following denial of plaintiff’s motion to vacate an order of dismissal entered pursuant to CPLR 3404, Special Term properly entertained plaintiff’s motion to renew (see Prude v County of Erie, 47 AD2d 111, 113-114; cf. Barry v Good Samaritan Hosp., 86 AD2d 853, revd on other grounds 56 NY2d 921) and thereupon, in the exercise of discretion, granted the relief requested. Plaintiff adequately rebutted the presumption of abandonment (see CPLR 3404; Marco v Sachs, 10 NY2d 542) and demonstrated excusable neglect, a meritorious claim and lack of prejudice to defendants (see Bouvia v Community Gen. Hosp., 85 AD2d 909). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J. — reargument — restore to calendar.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Following denial of plaintiff’s motion to vacate an order of dismissal entered pursuant to CPLR 3404, Special Term properly entertained plaintiff’s motion to renew (see Prude v County of Erie, 47 AD2d 111, 113-114; cf. Barry v Good Samaritan Hosp., 86 AD2d 853, revd on other grounds 56 NY2d 921) and thereupon, in the exercise of discretion, granted the relief requested. Plaintiff adequately rebutted the presumption of abandonment (see CPLR 3404; Marco v Sachs, 10 NY2d 542) and demonstrated excusable neglect, a meritorious claim and lack of prejudice to defendants (see Bouvia v Community Gen. Hosp., 85 AD2d 909). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J. — reargument — restore to calendar.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 957, 470 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odell-v-stornelli-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack