Pearl v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pearl v. City of New York

293 A.D.2d 406, 740 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4172

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

DecidedApril 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 406 (Pearl v. City of New York) 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

Pearl v. City of New York, 293 A.D.2d 406, 740 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 29, 2001, which granted defendants’ motions pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the action as abandoned, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

As conceded by defendant, the complaint cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 since, as established by case law rendered after entry of the order on appeal, the note of issue had not yet been filed (see, Koutsoupakis v City of New York, 292 AD2d 191; citing, inter alia, Johnson v Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 29, 2001, which granted defendants’ motions pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the action as abandoned, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

As conceded by defendant, the complaint cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 since, as established by case law rendered after entry of the order on appeal, the note of issue had not yet been filed (see, Koutsoupakis v City of New York, 292 AD2d 191; citing, inter alia, Johnson v Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 406, 740 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearl-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack