From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peker v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 31, 2000
268 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted November 30, 1999

January 31, 2000

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated September 9, 1998, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the case to the trial calendar.

Elya Peker, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Silverberg Stonehill Goldsmith, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mitchell L. Kaplan of counsel), for respondents.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party moving pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore a case to the trial calendar must demonstrate that the case has merit, there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, there was no intent to abandon the matter, and there is no prejudice to the nonmoving party (see, Moses v. Wilmaud Realty Corp., 262 A.D.2d 538 [2d Dept., June 21, 1999]; Yacono v. Waterman S.S. Co., 216 A.D.2d 556 ). As the plaintiff failed to satisfy these requirements, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to restore the case to the trial calendar.

RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Peker v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 31, 2000
268 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Peker v. Kaplan

Case Details

Full title:ELYA PEKER, appellant, v. ARTHUR A. KAPLAN, et al., respondents

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

Date published: Jan 31, 2000

Citations

268 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 852

Citing Cases

Friedman v. Friedman

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is…