Fiumefreddo v. Champion Trucks Rental Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Morrell v. Violet Towers, Inc.

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 50547 (N.Y. App. Term 2006)

    Plaintiff established the potential merit of his claim by the submission of the verified complaint, bill of particulars and an affidavit of merit ( see Nunez v. Resource Warehousing and Consolidation, 6 AD3d 325, 327). Plaintiff adequately explained the delay in seeking restoral and demonstrated that he did not abandon this litigation ( see Fiumefreddo v. Champion Trucks Rental, Inc., 194 AD2d 346). We note that all discovery has been completed and that the matter was marked off calendar through no fault of plaintiff, who made continuing efforts to schedule the arbitration.

  2. Alleyne v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp.

    12 A.D.3d 174 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    We affirm. While plaintiffs offer no excuse for their delay in restoring the case to the calendar after the decision on defendants' prior appeal, we also take into account the strong merit of this rear-end accident case, the lack of prejudice to defendants attributable to a delay that did not begin until the eve of trial, and the circumstance that the case was marked off the calendar as an accommodation to defendants (CPLR 2005; see Sanchez v. Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353, 355, 356; Fiumefreddo v. Champion Trucks Rental, 194 AD2d 346).

  3. Katz v. Robinson

    277 A.D.2d 70 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 12 times

    This contention is disingenuous. The case was removed from the trial calendar as the direct consequence of plaintiff's consent application to further stay the prosecution of his own action (cf., Evans v. New York City Hous. Auth., 262 A.D.2d 123 [death of plaintiff requiring appointment of administratrix]; Fiumefreddo v. Champion Trucks Rental, 194 A.D.2d 346, 347 [marking case off "was not due to any action or inaction on plaintiff's part"]). Plaintiff has therefore failed to show why he should be relieved from making the requisite showing in support of restoration.

  4. City of New York v. Strategic Dev. Concepts

    2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 30043 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001)

    See, Zabari v City of New York, 242 A.D.2d, at 17 ("a deposition transcript is an adequate substitution for an affidavit of merits"). In addition, SDC is wrong when it argues the City's claims are time-barred based on a dismissal under CPLR 3404.See, e.g., Fiumefreddo v Champion Trucks Rental, Inc., 194 A.D.2d 346 (1st Dept 1993) (action restored fourteen years after plaintiff sustained injuries that provided the basis for his claim). For instance, SDC relies on Article 14 of the Lease relating to condemnation of the premises.