Wachter v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wachter v. City of New York

300 A.D.2d 129, 750 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12499

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 17, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about May 31, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore the action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, [130] the motion granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

As conceded by defendant City, plaintiffs pre-note of issue case should not have been struck from the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see Johnson v Sam Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233, 235), and, in view of that circumstance and the absence of any other ground for marking the case off the calendar, plaintiffs motion to restore should have been granted. Concur— Tom, J.P., Buckley, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about May 31, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion to restore the action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, [130] the motion granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

As conceded by defendant City, plaintiffs pre-note of issue case should not have been struck from the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see Johnson v Sam Minskoff & Sons, 287 AD2d 233, 235), and, in view of that circumstance and the absence of any other ground for marking the case off the calendar, plaintiffs motion to restore should have been granted. Concur— Tom, J.P., Buckley, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Wachter v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 129, 750 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

300 A.D.2d 129 (Wachter v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related