Williams v. Bergen Beach Stable, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Bergen Beach Stable, Inc.

300 A.D.2d 655, 752 N.Y.S.2d 890

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 655 (Williams v. Bergen Beach Stable, Inc.) 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

Williams v. Bergen Beach Stable, Inc., 300 A.D.2d 655, 752 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Bergen Beach Stable, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated January 17, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, the plaintiff was entitled to the automatic restoration of the action to the trial calendar upon her timely motion (see Acheson v Shepard, 297 AD2d 271; cf. Bayon v Nardella, 296 AD2d 364, 365; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 134-135). Even assuming the motion to restore had been made more than one year after the case was marked off the trial calendar, the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action, reasonable excuse, lack of an intent to abandon, and absence of prejudice to the defendants (see CPLR 3404; Basetti v Nour, supra at 131). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Bergen Beach Stable, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated January 17, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, the plaintiff was entitled to the automatic restoration of the action to the trial calendar upon her timely motion (see Acheson v Shepard, 297 AD2d 271; cf. Bayon v Nardella, 296 AD2d 364, 365; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 134-135). Even assuming the motion to restore had been made more than one year after the case was marked off the trial calendar, the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action, reasonable excuse, lack of an intent to abandon, and absence of prejudice to the defendants (see CPLR 3404; Basetti v Nour, supra at 131). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 655, 752 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-bergen-beach-stable-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack