Varricchio v. Sterling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Varricchio v. Sterling

86 A.D.3d 535, 926 N.Y.2d 320

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 86 A.D.3d 535 (Varricchio v. Sterling) 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

Varricchio v. Sterling, 86 A.D.3d 535, 926 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

On July 16, 2008, this pre-note of issue action was marked [536]*536“other final disp.” after the parties failed to appear for a compliance conference. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action (see Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2010]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 199 [2001]). Furthermore, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d at 1138; Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 62 AD3d 741, 742 [2009]; Burdick v Marcus, 17 AD3d 388 [2005]; 123X Corp. v McKenzie, 7 AD3d 769 [2004]). Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to restore the action to active status should have been granted. Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

On July 16, 2008, this pre-note of issue action was marked [536]*536“other final disp.” after the parties failed to appear for a compliance conference. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action (see Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2010]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 199 [2001]). Furthermore, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d at 1138; Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 62 AD3d 741, 742 [2009]; Burdick v Marcus, 17 AD3d 388 [2005]; 123X Corp. v McKenzie, 7 AD3d 769 [2004]). Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to restore the action to active status should have been granted. Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.3d 535, 926 N.Y.2d 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varricchio-v-sterling-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack