From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Groudine v. Delco Dev. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2001
286 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted June 27, 2001.

August 20, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated March 30, 2000, which denied his motion to restore the action to the calendar.

Albert V. Bianchi, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Robert A. Bruno of counsel), for appellant.

Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (Carol A. Moore of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.

Arlene Zalayet, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert T. Baer of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

Before: Lawrence J. Bracken, P.J., William D. Friedmann, Anita R. Florio, Howard Miller, Sandra L. Townes, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A plaintiff seeking to restore an action to the calendar after it has been marked off and dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants if the action is restored (see, Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., A.D.2d [2d Dept., May 14, 2001]). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the calendar. The excuse for the four-year delay in moving to restore, that the plaintiff's counsel thought the action had been restored to the calendar by the defendants and had confused this action with another action commenced by the plaintiff's decedent, was not reasonable (see, Kourtsounis v. Chakrabarty, 254 A.D.2d 394). Furthermore, in light of the inactivity during that time, the presumption of abandonment that attaches when a matter has been automatically dismissed was not rebutted (see, Furniture Village v. Schoenberger, A.D.2d [2d Dept., May 29, 2001]; Cruz v. Volkswagen of Am., 277 A.D.2d 340).

Moreover, since more than 10 years elapsed between the accident and the motion to restore the action to the calendar, the defendants would be prejudiced if the action were restored (see, Furniture Village v. Schoenberger, supra; Cruz v. Volkswagen of Am., supra; McCarthy v. Bagner, 271 A.D.2d 509).


Summaries of

Groudine v. Delco Dev. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2001
286 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Groudine v. Delco Dev. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:GARY GROUDINE, ETC., APPELLANT, v. DELCO DEVELOPMENT CORP., DEFENDANT…

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

Date published: Aug 20, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 513

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. Gomez

Even after the dismissal that occurs upon the passage of one year, the plaintiff may move to vacate the…

Mooney v. City of New York

Further, the conclusory allegations contained in the plaintiffs affidavit were insufficient to establish the…