From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benitez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 2003
2 A.D.3d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2535N.

Decided December 18, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2002, which denied plaintiff's motion to restore his action to the pre-trial calendar, inter alia, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Jeffrey B. Melcer, for Defendant.

Robert G. DelGadio, for Defendants-Respondents.

Lawrence R. Miles, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.

Robert G. DelGadio, Lawrence R. Miles, Defendant-Respondent.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Rosenberger, Friedman, JJ.


Plaintiff's personal injury action was dismissed by order of Justice Braun in March 1998, on the erroneous impression that the action had been marked off the calendar in June 1994 and abandoned, when in fact it had been restored to the calendar by order of Justice Solomon in September 1997. The remedy for that error was a timely motion for reargument (CPLR 2221), a timely appeal (CPLR 5513), or a timely motion to be relieved of default (CPLR 5015[a][1]). Plaintiff did none of these. Justice Braun's dismissal order has become final. Plaintiff has failed to present valid grounds for reviving this action at this late date.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Benitez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 2003
2 A.D.3d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Benitez v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JULIO BENITEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant…

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

Date published: Dec 18, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
769 N.Y.S.2d 258

Citing Cases

The Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Abraham

"Absent circumstances set forth in CPLR 5015, which are inapplicable here, a motion for leave to renew based…

People v. Merly

Specifically, CPLR 2221(d)(3) expressly requires that a motion to reargue be made within thirty days after…