SEBCO Corp. v. Shore View Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

SEBCO Corp. v. Shore View Corp.

284 A.D.2d 446, 726 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6300

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

DecidedJune 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 446 (SEBCO Corp. v. Shore View Corp.) 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

SEBCO Corp. v. Shore View Corp., 284 A.D.2d 446, 726 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated March 7, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Shore View Corp., in which the defendant Fowler Route Co. joined, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

This case was not marked “off’ or struck from the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated March 7, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Shore View Corp., in which the defendant Fowler Route Co. joined, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

This case was not marked “off’ or struck from the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see, Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 446, 726 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sebco-corp-v-shore-view-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack