Ziegler v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ziegler v. City of New York

266 A.D.2d 536, 698 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12307

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 536 (Ziegler 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

Ziegler v. City of New York, 266 A.D.2d 536, 698 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant Brooklyn Union Gas. Company appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated August 24, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 and restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[537]*537Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the trial court properly vacated the automatic dismissal and restored the action to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs demonstrated an absence of intent to abandon the case, reasonable excuse for the delay, a meritorious cause of action, and lack of prejudice to the defendants (see, CPLR 3404; Rifkin v Herman, 262 AD2d 389; Etter v County of Nassau, 261 AD2d 571). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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, etc., the third-party defendant Brooklyn Union Gas. Company appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated August 24, 1998, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3404 and restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[537]*537Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the trial court properly vacated the automatic dismissal and restored the action to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs demonstrated an absence of intent to abandon the case, reasonable excuse for the delay, a meritorious cause of action, and lack of prejudice to the defendants (see, CPLR 3404; Rifkin v Herman, 262 AD2d 389; Etter v County of Nassau, 261 AD2d 571). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 536, 698 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ziegler-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack