Swartz v. 234-6 22nd Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swartz v. 234-6 22nd Street Corp.

305 A.D.2d 336, 759 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6114

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

DecidedMay 29, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 336 (Swartz v. 234-6 22nd Street 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

Swartz v. 234-6 22nd Street Corp., 305 A.D.2d 336, 759 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2002, which denied plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the calendar and for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to restore was properly denied for failure to show a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to restore, an intent not to abandon the action and lack of prejudice to defendants (see Burgos v 2915 Surf Ave. Food Mart, 298 AD2d 282, 283 [2002]). Nor is plaintiff entitled to summary judgment. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about March 27, 2002, which denied plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the calendar and for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to restore was properly denied for failure to show a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to restore, an intent not to abandon the action and lack of prejudice to defendants (see Burgos v 2915 Surf Ave. Food Mart, 298 AD2d 282, 283 [2002]). Nor is plaintiff entitled to summary judgment. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 336, 759 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swartz-v-234-6-22nd-street-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack