Stewart v. Tapps Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stewart v. Tapps Supermarket, Inc.

289 A.D.2d 561, 735 N.Y.S.2d 800, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13086

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 561 (Stewart v. Tapps Supermarket, 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

Stewart v. Tapps Supermarket, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 561, 735 N.Y.S.2d 800, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated March 9, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

It is well settled that a plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must establish all of the following: (1) a meritorious cause of action, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the defendant (see, Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126; Schwartz v Mandelbaum & Gluck, 266 AD2d 273; Moses v Wilmaud Realty Corp., 262 AD2d 538). The plaintiffs affidavit of merit, consisting of bare and conclusory allegations, which simply mirror the allegations of the complaint and bill of particulars, was patently insufficient to establish a meritorious cause of action (see, Vargas v Flatbush Pest Control, 178 AD2d 528). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion. Krausman, J. P., Luciano, Smith, Adams and Prudenti, 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, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated March 9, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

It is well settled that a plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must establish all of the following: (1) a meritorious cause of action, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the defendant (see, Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126; Schwartz v Mandelbaum & Gluck, 266 AD2d 273; Moses v Wilmaud Realty Corp., 262 AD2d 538). The plaintiffs affidavit of merit, consisting of bare and conclusory allegations, which simply mirror the allegations of the complaint and bill of particulars, was patently insufficient to establish a meritorious cause of action (see, Vargas v Flatbush Pest Control, 178 AD2d 528). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the motion. Krausman, J. P., Luciano, Smith, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 561, 735 N.Y.S.2d 800, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-tapps-supermarket-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack