Ottomanelli v. Lavigne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ottomanelli v. Lavigne

235 A.D.2d 297, 652 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 446

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D.2d 297 (Ottomanelli v. Lavigne) 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

Ottomanelli v. Lavigne, 235 A.D.2d 297, 652 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 30, 1996, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to renew a prior order denying their motion to restore [298]*298the action to the trial calendar, and, upon renewal, granted the motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As defendants acknowledge, automatic dismissal under CPLR 3404 is no longer warranted by reason of an intervening change in the law (Ronsco Constr. Co. v 30 E. 85th St. Co., 219 AD2d 281). On the merits, plaintiffs’ motion to renew demonstrated a meritorious cause of action, adequate reasons for the delay in prosecuting the action and absence of prejudice to defendants (see, Barton v Jablon, 181 AD2d 755, 755-756). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about May 30, 1996, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to renew a prior order denying their motion to restore [298]*298the action to the trial calendar, and, upon renewal, granted the motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As defendants acknowledge, automatic dismissal under CPLR 3404 is no longer warranted by reason of an intervening change in the law (Ronsco Constr. Co. v 30 E. 85th St. Co., 219 AD2d 281). On the merits, plaintiffs’ motion to renew demonstrated a meritorious cause of action, adequate reasons for the delay in prosecuting the action and absence of prejudice to defendants (see, Barton v Jablon, 181 AD2d 755, 755-756). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 297, 652 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ottomanelli-v-lavigne-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack