Sanchez v. Denkberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. Denkberg

284 A.D.2d 446, 726 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6361

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 18, 2001·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated July 20, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 3404 creates a rebuttable presumption that an action marked off the trial calendar and not restored within one year has been abandoned. The Supreme Court may restore the case if the movant establishes the merits of the cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the other party (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190; Rifkin v Herman, 262 AD2d 389). The plaintiffs met this burden, and thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in restoring the plaintiffs’ action to the trial calendar. Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated July 20, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 3404 creates a rebuttable presumption that an action marked off the trial calendar and not restored within one year has been abandoned. The Supreme Court may restore the case if the movant establishes the merits of the cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the other party (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190; Rifkin v Herman, 262 AD2d 389). The plaintiffs met this burden, and thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in restoring the plaintiffs’ action to the trial calendar. Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Sanchez v. Denkberg, 284 A.D.2d 446, 726 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

284 A.D.2d 446 (Sanchez v. Denkberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related