Vitale v. City Construction Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vitale v. City Construction Management Co.

172 A.D.2d 326

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

DecidedApril 18, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 326 (Vitale v. City Construction Management Co.) 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

Vitale v. City Construction Management Co., 172 A.D.2d 326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about March 12, 1990, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was dismissed after plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at pre-trial conferences on successive occasions. Plaintiff subsequently retained new counsel, who discovered the dismissal upon moving for an order directing prior counsel to turn over the file. That motion was ostensibly withdrawn so that plaintiff could move to restore the action to the trial calendar. The motion to restore was granted and defendant has appealed.

Absent a consent signed by prior counsel, or an order of the court, prior counsel remained plaintiff’s counsel of record (CPLR 321 [b]; Hess v Tyszko, 46 AD2d 980). However, we accept the undisputed representation made on appeal that permission to make the motion to compel delivery of the file [327]*327was denied, and that the court required that the instant motion to restore be made first. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust to treat the motion as improperly brought, especially since there is no showing of confusion or prejudice on the part of the defendant. Further, under the circumstances, plaintiff has sufficiently established a meritorious claim and a reasonable excuse for the default. (Compare, Eisenstein v Rose, 135 AD2d 369.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about March 12, 1990, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was dismissed after plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at pre-trial conferences on successive occasions. Plaintiff subsequently retained new counsel, who discovered the dismissal upon moving for an order directing prior counsel to turn over the file. That motion was ostensibly withdrawn so that plaintiff could move to restore the action to the trial calendar. The motion to restore was granted and defendant has appealed.

Absent a consent signed by prior counsel, or an order of the court, prior counsel remained plaintiff’s counsel of record (CPLR 321 [b]; Hess v Tyszko, 46 AD2d 980). However, we accept the undisputed representation made on appeal that permission to make the motion to compel delivery of the file [327]*327was denied, and that the court required that the instant motion to restore be made first. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust to treat the motion as improperly brought, especially since there is no showing of confusion or prejudice on the part of the defendant. Further, under the circumstances, plaintiff has sufficiently established a meritorious claim and a reasonable excuse for the default. (Compare, Eisenstein v Rose, 135 AD2d 369.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vitale-v-city-construction-management-co-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack