Okun v. Tanners

New York Court of Appeals

Okun v. Tanners

896 N.E.2d 660, 11 N.Y.3d 762

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 896 N.E.2d 660 (Okun v. Tanners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Okun v. Tanners, 896 N.E.2d 660, 11 N.Y.3d 762 (N.Y. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, plaintiff’s cross motion to restore the action to the calendar denied and defendant’s motion to dismiss the action as abandoned dismissed as unnecessary. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

Under the circumstances, plaintiffs conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure does not constitute a reasonable excuse for the 20-month delay in pursuing the action. Further, plaintiffs inactivity between the time the action was marked off the calendar and defendant’s motion to dismiss fails [764]*764to rebut the presumption of abandonment that arose pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

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