Ruiz v. Roofeh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruiz v. Roofeh

285 A.D.2d 541, 727 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7479

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

DecidedJuly 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 541 (Ruiz v. Roofeh) 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

Ruiz v. Roofeh, 285 A.D.2d 541, 727 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated March 6, 2000, which denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

A plaintiff seeking to restore an action to the trial calendar after it has been marked off and dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants if the action is restored. The plaintiff must satisfy all four components of the test before the motion can be granted (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190). The plaintiff failed to satisfy all of these elements, and thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion (see, Furniture Vil. v Schoenberger, 283 AD2d 607). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, 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 medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated March 6, 2000, which denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

A plaintiff seeking to restore an action to the trial calendar after it has been marked off and dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants if the action is restored. The plaintiff must satisfy all four components of the test before the motion can be granted (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190). The plaintiff failed to satisfy all of these elements, and thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion (see, Furniture Vil. v Schoenberger, 283 AD2d 607). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 541, 727 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-roofeh-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack