Peker v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peker v. Kaplan

268 A.D.2d 572, 702 N.Y.S.2d 852, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1017

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 572 (Peker v. Kaplan) 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

Peker v. Kaplan, 268 A.D.2d 572, 702 N.Y.S.2d 852, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated September 9, 1998, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the case to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party moving pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore a case to the trial calendar must demonstrate that the case has merit, there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, there was no intent to abandon the matter, and there is no prejudice to the non-moving party (see, Moses v Wilmaud Realty Corp., 262 AD2d 538; Yacono v Waterman S.S. Co., 216 AD2d 556). As the plaintiff failed to satisfy these requirements, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to restore the case to the trial calendar. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated September 9, 1998, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the case to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party moving pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore a case to the trial calendar must demonstrate that the case has merit, there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, there was no intent to abandon the matter, and there is no prejudice to the non-moving party (see, Moses v Wilmaud Realty Corp., 262 AD2d 538; Yacono v Waterman S.S. Co., 216 AD2d 556). As the plaintiff failed to satisfy these requirements, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to restore the case to the trial calendar. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 572, 702 N.Y.S.2d 852, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peker-v-kaplan-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack