Yacono v. Waterman Steamship Co.

216 A.D.2d 556, 628 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7101
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 26, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 556 (Yacono v. Waterman Steamship 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
Yacono v. Waterman Steamship Co., 216 A.D.2d 556, 628 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Buck Kreighs Co., Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated May 10, 1994, as granted the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to restore the action to the court’s calendar insofar as it is asserted against it.

[557]*557Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the branch of the plaintiff s motion which is to restore the action to the court’s calendar insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Buck Kreights Co., Inc., is denied, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

It is well settled that a party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the absence of prejudice to the nonmoving party (see, Kopilas v Peterson, 206 AD2d 460; Knight v City of New York, 193 AD2d 720). The plaintiff in this case has failed to establish all of these criteria. Thus, the branch of the plaintiff s motion which was to restore the action to the trial calendar insofar as it is asserted against the appellant is denied (see, Kopilas v Peterson, supra; Knight v City of New York, supra). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

LoFredo v. CMC Occupational Health Services, P. C.
189 Misc. 2d 781 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Peker v. Kaplan
268 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Schwartz v. Mandelbaum & Gluck
266 A.D.2d 273 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Moses v. Wilmaud Realty Corp.
262 A.D.2d 538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
McKenna v. Solomon
255 A.D.2d 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Yacono v. Buck Kreighs Co.
242 A.D.2d 291 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Prado v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc.
237 A.D.2d 341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Acciarito v. Homedco, Inc.
237 A.D.2d 236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Habib v. Miller
233 A.D.2d 480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
JIMCO Restoration Corp. v. Miller
228 A.D.2d 649 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 A.D.2d 556, 628 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yacono-v-waterman-steamship-co-nyappdiv-1995.