Rosenkrantz v. Erdheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenkrantz v. Erdheim

272 A.D.2d 64, 707 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899

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

DecidedMay 2, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 64 (Rosenkrantz v. Erdheim) 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

Rosenkrantz v. Erdheim, 272 A.D.2d 64, 707 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered June 21, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 for plaintiffs failure to prosecute her action during the four years the action was marked “off calendar,” and restored the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since at the time this action was marked off the calendar, a stay of the action was in effect, and plaintiffs verified complaint and bill of particulars assert a meritorious claim for legal malpractice, the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution was properly denied (see, Ramputi v Timko Contr. Corp., 262 AD2d 26, 27, citing Sanchez v Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353, 355). We find no demonstrable prejudice to defendant by reason of the period between the date the action was marked “off calendar” and defendant’s motion, since defendant’s defense will in all likelihood be based principally on his personal notes and the court files of plaintiffs matrimonial action. In light of the continuing viability of plaintiffs malpractice claim, the prior judgment in defendant’s favor stemming from defendant’s counterclaim for legal fees should remain stayed pending resolution of the main action. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered June 21, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 for plaintiffs failure to prosecute her action during the four years the action was marked “off calendar,” and restored the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since at the time this action was marked off the calendar, a stay of the action was in effect, and plaintiffs verified complaint and bill of particulars assert a meritorious claim for legal malpractice, the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution was properly denied (see, Ramputi v Timko Contr. Corp., 262 AD2d 26, 27, citing Sanchez v Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353, 355). We find no demonstrable prejudice to defendant by reason of the period between the date the action was marked “off calendar” and defendant’s motion, since defendant’s defense will in all likelihood be based principally on his personal notes and the court files of plaintiffs matrimonial action. In light of the continuing viability of plaintiffs malpractice claim, the prior judgment in defendant’s favor stemming from defendant’s counterclaim for legal fees should remain stayed pending resolution of the main action. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 64, 707 N.Y.S.2d 831, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenkrantz-v-erdheim-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack