Tuala v. Empire Bldrs. & Restoration Corp.

2026 NY Slip Op 00281

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 528824/21
• Status: Published

Opinion

Tuala v Empire Bldrs. & Restoration Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 00281)

Tuala v Empire Bldrs. & Restoration Corp.

2026 NY Slip Op 00281

Decided on January 21, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 21, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
HELEN VOUTSINAS
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.

2024-09872
(Index No. 528824/21)

[*1]Segundo Silverio Tuala, respondent,

v

Empire Builders & Restoration Corp., appellant (and a third-party action).

Harold A. Bollaci, Westbury, NY, for appellant.

Ginarte Gonzalez Winograd, LLP, New York, NY (Anthony F. DeStefano of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Empire Builders & Restoration Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leon Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 17, 2024. The order granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to active status and to extend the plaintiff's time to file a note of issue.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to restore this action to active status and to extend the plaintiff's time to file a note of issue. Since this action was in pre-note of issue status, CPLR 3404 does not apply (see Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gibson, 111 AD3d 875, 875; Varricchio v Sterling, 86 AD3d 535, 536; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 199). Further, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 nor an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Alli v Baijnath, 101 AD3d 771; Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138; Grant v County of Nassau, 28 AD3d 714).

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VOUTSINAS and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court