P. Cubed Enterprises, Inc. v. Roach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

P. Cubed Enterprises, Inc. v. Roach

265 A.D.2d 537, 696 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10793

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 537 (P. Cubed Enterprises, Inc. v. Roach) 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

P. Cubed Enterprises, Inc. v. Roach, 265 A.D.2d 537, 696 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice and fraud, the plaintiffs [538]*538appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated September 16, 1998, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action is restored to the calendar.

Since no note of issue placing the action on the court’s calendar was filed (see, CPLR 3402), the court incorrectly dismissed the action pursuant to CPLR 3404. The correct procedure to dismiss the action required a motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see, Davila v Galarza, 221 AD2d 308). As no demand to file a note of issue within 90 days was served, dismissal under CPLR 3216 would also have been improper. Bracken, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice and fraud, the plaintiffs [538]*538appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated September 16, 1998, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action is restored to the calendar.

Since no note of issue placing the action on the court’s calendar was filed (see, CPLR 3402), the court incorrectly dismissed the action pursuant to CPLR 3404. The correct procedure to dismiss the action required a motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see, Davila v Galarza, 221 AD2d 308). As no demand to file a note of issue within 90 days was served, dismissal under CPLR 3216 would also have been improper. Bracken, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 537, 696 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-cubed-enterprises-inc-v-roach-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack