Robinson v. Soutar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Soutar

12 A.D.3d 432, 783 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13375

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 432 (Robinson v. Soutar) 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

Robinson v. Soutar, 12 A.D.3d 432, 783 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated August 6, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the case to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the facts, and as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, the action is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

In support of her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action upon her failure to proceed when the case was called for trial, and to restore the action to the trial calendar, the plaintiff demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; 22 NYCRR 202.27; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 133 [2001]). Accordingly, the motion should have been granted.

An examination of the Supreme Court file in this action discloses that there is no written order concerning the dismissal of this action on May 28, 2002. We take this opportunity to again remind the bench that upon dismissing any matter for any reason, the court should enter a written order stating the basis for dismissal (see Baez v Mohamed, 10 AD3d 623 [2004]; Veramallay v Paim, 5 AD3d 673 [2004]; Basetti v Nour, supra). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt, Crane and Skelos, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated August 6, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the case to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the facts, and as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, the action is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

In support of her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action upon her failure to proceed when the case was called for trial, and to restore the action to the trial calendar, the plaintiff demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; 22 NYCRR 202.27; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 133 [2001]). Accordingly, the motion should have been granted.

An examination of the Supreme Court file in this action discloses that there is no written order concerning the dismissal of this action on May 28, 2002. We take this opportunity to again remind the bench that upon dismissing any matter for any reason, the court should enter a written order stating the basis for dismissal (see Baez v Mohamed, 10 AD3d 623 [2004]; Veramallay v Paim, 5 AD3d 673 [2004]; Basetti v Nour, supra). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 432, 783 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-soutar-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack