From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoenig v. Stetefeldt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1987
127 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

February 9, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondents except for Kanaje Corporation.

The Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to restore the case to the Trial Calendar. This was the second time the action was stricken from the calendar on the plaintiff's default in appearance and counsel admittedly did not even check on the status of the case until more than a year after the second time it was marked off. No reasonable excuse has been established for this continuing neglect of a case which was commenced over 10 years ago. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hoenig v. Stetefeldt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1987
127 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Hoenig v. Stetefeldt

Case Details

Full title:HAROLD HOENIG, Appellant, v. JOHN STETEFELDT et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 9, 1987

Citations

127 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Todd Company v. Birnbaum

An action dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 may only be restored upon a showing of a meritorious cause of…

Sang Seok Na v. Greyhound Lines Inc.

ction, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendant ( see Vidal v.…