From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fishman v. City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 23, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking to restore a matter to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must show the existence of a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, an intent not to abandon the matter, and lack of prejudice to the opposing party ( see, Carco Group v. Murphy, 233 A.D.2d 415; Bohlman v. Lorenzen, 208 A.D.2d 582; Innvar v. Schapira, 208 A.D.2d 903). All four requirements must be met to vacate a dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404 ( see, Ornstein v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 121 A.D.2d 610). The plaintiffs have faded to satisfy the standard in this case.

We decline to reach the plaintiffs' claim regarding the tolling provision for infancy set forth in CPLR 208, as it is being raised for the first time on appeal ( see, Murray v. Palmer, 229 A.D.2d 377; Shelton v. Shelton, 151 A.D.2d 659).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fishman v. City

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1998
255 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Fishman v. City

Case Details

Full title:MICAH FISHMAN, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, EDWARD…

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

Date published: Nov 23, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 908

Citing Cases

Laxton v. Price Chopper, Inc.

A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR…