Smith v. Nanasi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Nanasi

213 A.D.2d 394, 624 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2486

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 394 (Smith v. Nanasi) 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

Smith v. Nanasi, 213 A.D.2d 394, 624 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 18, 1993, which denied his motion to restore the matter to the court’s calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents 1800 Property Co. and Parkway Realty Associates.

The plaintiff failed to move to restore the action to the Supreme Court’s calendar of active cases within one year of its being marked off that calendar, and it was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. Since the plaintiff has failed to show a justification for the delay, lack of prejudice, and a meritorious cause of action, he is not entitled to be relieved of the dismissal (see, Mamet v Mamet, 132 AD2d 479; Fluman v TSS Dept. Stores, 100 AD2d 838). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated October 18, 1993, which denied his motion to restore the matter to the court’s calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents 1800 Property Co. and Parkway Realty Associates.

The plaintiff failed to move to restore the action to the Supreme Court’s calendar of active cases within one year of its being marked off that calendar, and it was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. Since the plaintiff has failed to show a justification for the delay, lack of prejudice, and a meritorious cause of action, he is not entitled to be relieved of the dismissal (see, Mamet v Mamet, 132 AD2d 479; Fluman v TSS Dept. Stores, 100 AD2d 838). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 394, 624 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-nanasi-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack