Williams v. Forest City Albee Square Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Forest City Albee Square Associates, L.P.

289 A.D.2d 2, 733 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11600

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 2 (Williams v. Forest City Albee Square Associates, L.P.) 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. Forest City Albee Square Associates, L.P., 289 A.D.2d 2, 733 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2000, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of their action and to restore it to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion to restore since their papers establish that they have a meritorious cause of action; that they did not intend to deliberately abandon the case; that the conduct of their attorneys constituted a reasonable excuse for their delay in moving to restore; and that defendants have not been prejudiced (see, Palermo v Lord & Taylor, 287 AD2d 258). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2000, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of their action and to restore it to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion to restore since their papers establish that they have a meritorious cause of action; that they did not intend to deliberately abandon the case; that the conduct of their attorneys constituted a reasonable excuse for their delay in moving to restore; and that defendants have not been prejudiced (see, Palermo v Lord & Taylor, 287 AD2d 258). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 2, 733 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-forest-city-albee-square-associates-lp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack