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

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 129 (Wachter v. City of New York) 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

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

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]*130the 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]*130the 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 129, 750 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wachter-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack