Rivers v. Jamaica Water Supply Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivers v. Jamaica Water Supply Co.

250 A.D.2d 661, 671 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5553

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

DecidedMay 11, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 661 (Rivers v. Jamaica Water Supply 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. Jamaica Water Supply Co., 250 A.D.2d 661, 671 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated February 21,1997, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate the automatic dismissal of the action entered pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party” (Civello v Grossman, 192 AD2d 636; see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan, 248 AD2d 432; Iazzetta v Vicenzi, 243 AD2d 540; Henne v Lefrak, 246 AD2d 628; Miller v City of New York, 242 AD2d 370). Moreover, all of the above requirements must be satisfied before a case can be properly restored (see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan, supra; Gonzalez v First Natl. Supermarket, 232 AD2d 609; Roland v Napolitano, 209 AD2d 501).

The plaintiffs have failed to establish their entitlement to restoration of the case to the trial calendar (see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan, supra; Kopilas v Peterson, 206 AD2d 460). Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated February 21,1997, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate the automatic dismissal of the action entered pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party” (Civello v Grossman, 192 AD2d 636; see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan, 248 AD2d 432; Iazzetta v Vicenzi, 243 AD2d 540; Henne v Lefrak, 246 AD2d 628; Miller v City of New York, 242 AD2d 370). Moreover, all of the above requirements must be satisfied before a case can be properly restored (see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan, supra; Gonzalez v First Natl. Supermarket, 232 AD2d 609; Roland v Napolitano, 209 AD2d 501).

The plaintiffs have failed to establish their entitlement to restoration of the case to the trial calendar (see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan, supra; Kopilas v Peterson, 206 AD2d 460). Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 661, 671 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivers-v-jamaica-water-supply-co-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack