Opinion
November 10, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.
Under the rules of this court in effect at the time the plaintiff moved to restore this action to the Trial Calendar, the plaintiff was required to show "(1) the merits of the action; (2) the reasons for the acts or omissions wherefor it was struck from the calendar; and (3) good cause why it should be restored" (see, 22 N.Y.CRR former 675.5 [b]; see also, Fluman v ISS Dept. Stores, 100 A.D.2d 838; Pirnak v Savino, 96 A.D.2d 857; Monacelli v Board of Educ., 92 A.D.2d 930). The affidavit of the plaintiff and affirmation of her attorney were not sufficient to sustain this burden because they were conclusory, not based on personal knowledge and unsupported by any corroborative documents or evidence (see, Harrison v Henderson, 105 A.D.2d 730; Rothenberg v Parkway Exterminating Co., 90 A.D.2d 497; Monahan v Fiore, 71 A.D.2d 914). It was therefore an abuse of discretion to grant the plaintiff's motion. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.