Sherman v. American Yard Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sherman v. American Yard Products, Inc.

306 A.D.2d 138, 760 N.Y.S.2d 320, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6974

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

DecidedJune 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 138 (Sherman v. American Yard Products, Inc.) 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

Sherman v. American Yard Products, Inc., 306 A.D.2d 138, 760 N.Y.S.2d 320, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered October 25, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion to deem the action dismissed for failure to prosecute, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to restore the action to “active status,” unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on plaintiffs failure to restore the action to a pre-note-of-issue calendar and other delay in prosecuting the action was properly denied on the ground that no CPLR 3216 notice was ever served (see Jiles v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 307 [2002]). However, plaintiffs cross motion to restore the case to active status should have been granted at least to the extent of acknowledging that prior to the filing of a note of issue, a case cannot be regarded as “inactive,” and that future proceedings initiated by the parties to ready the action for trial would be entertained (see id.). Any prejudice caused to defendant by the delay could have been avoided by service of a CPLR 3216 notice (see id.). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered October 25, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion to deem the action dismissed for failure to prosecute, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to restore the action to “active status,” unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on plaintiffs failure to restore the action to a pre-note-of-issue calendar and other delay in prosecuting the action was properly denied on the ground that no CPLR 3216 notice was ever served (see Jiles v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 307 [2002]). However, plaintiffs cross motion to restore the case to active status should have been granted at least to the extent of acknowledging that prior to the filing of a note of issue, a case cannot be regarded as “inactive,” and that future proceedings initiated by the parties to ready the action for trial would be entertained (see id.). Any prejudice caused to defendant by the delay could have been avoided by service of a CPLR 3216 notice (see id.). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 138, 760 N.Y.S.2d 320, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-american-yard-products-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack