Rivers v. Fuller Brush Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivers v. Fuller Brush Co.

275 A.D.2d 449, 713 N.Y.S.2d 133, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8946

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

DecidedAugust 28, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 449 (Rivers v. Fuller Brush Co.) 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

Rivers v. Fuller Brush Co., 275 A.D.2d 449, 713 N.Y.S.2d 133, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated July 15, 1999, as denied her cross motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 and to restore the action to the trial calendar, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated December 9,1999, which denied her motion, denominated as one to renew and reargue, but which was, in fact, to reargue the denial of her prior cross motion.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 9, 1999, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 15, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

CPLR 3404 creates a rebuttable presumption that an action marked off the trial calendar and not restored within one year thereafter is abandoned. The Supreme Court has the discretion to restore such a case to the trial calendar if the plaintiff establishes the merit of the action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to restore, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party (see, Kourtsounis v Chakrabarty, 254 AD2d 394; Swedish v Bourie, 233 AD2d 495). Here, the plaintiffs submission in support of her motion did not meet that burden.

[450]*450Where, as here, the movant does not demonstrate a valid excuse for the failure to produce the purportedly new information, the motion is actually one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, McGill v Polytechnic Univ., 235 AD2d 400, 402). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Friedmann, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated July 15, 1999, as denied her cross motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 and to restore the action to the trial calendar, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated December 9,1999, which denied her motion, denominated as one to renew and reargue, but which was, in fact, to reargue the denial of her prior cross motion.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 9, 1999, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 15, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

CPLR 3404 creates a rebuttable presumption that an action marked off the trial calendar and not restored within one year thereafter is abandoned. The Supreme Court has the discretion to restore such a case to the trial calendar if the plaintiff establishes the merit of the action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to restore, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party (see, Kourtsounis v Chakrabarty, 254 AD2d 394; Swedish v Bourie, 233 AD2d 495). Here, the plaintiffs submission in support of her motion did not meet that burden.

[450]*450Where, as here, the movant does not demonstrate a valid excuse for the failure to produce the purportedly new information, the motion is actually one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, McGill v Polytechnic Univ., 235 AD2d 400, 402). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 449, 713 N.Y.S.2d 133, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivers-v-fuller-brush-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack