Rosario v. Ortiz Funeral Home

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosario v. Ortiz Funeral Home

20 Misc. 3d 12

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 4, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order entered December 14, 2006, deemed, pursuant to CPLR 5517 (b), to be taken from the subsequent order, same court and Judge, entered on or about June 13, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination, and, so considered, the order of June 13, 2007 is affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Sharon A.M. Aarons, J., at Civil Court. (See 16 Misc 3d 739 [2007].)

In affirming, we note our agreement that the case reverted to its prenotice of trial status by dint of the parties’ so-ordered stipulation striking the notice of trial to allow completion of discovery (see Gorski v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 36 AD3d 757 [2007]) and that, in consequence, neither Uniform Civil Rules for New York City Civil Court (22 NYCRR) § 208.14 (c) nor CPLR 3404 can be invoked to authorize the dismissal of the action (see Johnson v Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233 [2001]; see also Kaufman v Bauer, 36 AD2d 481, 482 [2007]).

McKeon, PJ., Davis and Heitler, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order entered December 14, 2006, deemed, pursuant to CPLR 5517 (b), to be taken from the subsequent order, same court and Judge, entered on or about June 13, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination, and, so considered, the order of June 13, 2007 is affirmed, with $10 costs, for the reasons stated by Sharon A.M. Aarons, J., at Civil Court. (See 16 Misc 3d 739 [2007].)

In affirming, we note our agreement that the case reverted to its prenotice of trial status by dint of the parties’ so-ordered stipulation striking the notice of trial to allow completion of discovery (see Gorski v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 36 AD3d 757 [2007]) and that, in consequence, neither Uniform Civil Rules for New York City Civil Court (22 NYCRR) § 208.14 (c) nor CPLR 3404 can be invoked to authorize the dismissal of the action (see Johnson v Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233 [2001]; see also Kaufman v Bauer, 36 AD2d 481, 482 [2007]).

McKeon, PJ., Davis and Heitler, JJ., concur.

Rosario v. Ortiz Funeral Home, 20 Misc. 3d 12 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

20 Misc. 3d 12 (Rosario v. Ortiz Funeral Home) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related