Palmer v. George W. Long, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmer v. George W. Long, Inc.

219 A.D.2d 854, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10958

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D.2d 854 (Palmer v. George W. Long, Inc.) 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

Palmer v. George W. Long, Inc., 219 A.D.2d 854, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in placing this case on the pre-note calendar for Supreme Court, Monroe County. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this case because by its very terms it applies only where a case is "marked 'off or struck from the calendar or unanswered on a clerk’s calendar call, and not restored within one year thereafter”. There is no evidence in the record to support defendant’s assertion that the case was stricken from Justice Cornelius’ pre-note calendar. In any event, plaintiff established that she never intended to abandon the action (see, Beaugene v Duo-Fast Corp., 206 AD2d 971). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J. — Restore to Calendar.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in placing this case on the pre-note calendar for Supreme Court, Monroe County. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this case because by its very terms it applies only where a case is "marked 'off or struck from the calendar or unanswered on a clerk’s calendar call, and not restored within one year thereafter”. There is no evidence in the record to support defendant’s assertion that the case was stricken from Justice Cornelius’ pre-note calendar. In any event, plaintiff established that she never intended to abandon the action (see, Beaugene v Duo-Fast Corp., 206 AD2d 971). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J. — Restore to Calendar.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 854, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-george-w-long-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack