Rosario v. Ortiz Funeral Home

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosario v. Ortiz Funeral Home

20 Misc. 3d 12

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 4, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 Misc. 3d 12 (Rosario v. Ortiz Funeral Home) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Misc. 3d 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosario-v-ortiz-funeral-home-nyappterm-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack