From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Borrelli v. Maye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 2002
293 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-07434

Submitted March 6, 2002.

April 8, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 1, 2001, which denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Fratello Fox, P.C., Woodbury, N.Y. (Alexander J. Wulwick of counsel), for appellant.

Arlene Zalayet, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert T. Baer of counsel), for respondent.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., ANITA R. FLORIO, SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it was stricken, and after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must establish all of the following: (1) a meritorious cause of action, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the defendant (see Basetti v. Nour, 287 A.D.2d 126; McCarthy v. Bagner, 271 A.D.2d 509). The plaintiff failed to establish all of these elements. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion.

PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Borrelli v. Maye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 2002
293 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Borrelli v. Maye

Case Details

Full title:MARK C. BORRELLI, appellant, v. MARY A. MAYE, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 8, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
739 N.Y.S.2d 826

Citing Cases

Swanson v. Eichler

"A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it was stricken, and…

Nasuro v. PI Associates, LLC

Although the note of issue, which had been previously filed, was not vacated at that time, where, as here, an…