From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Honeoye Falls-Lima Cent. Sch. v. Leo J. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1976
53 A.D.2d 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

July 12, 1976

Appeal from the Monroe Supreme Court.

Present — Marsh, P.J., Cardamone, Mahoney, Dillon and Goldman, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: This case was stricken from the general docket and dismissed for neglect to prosecute by entry of the court clerk pursuant to CPLR 3404. Thus defendants' motions at Special Term to dismiss the complaint were unnecessary and moot. Special Term properly granted defendants' motions to strike plaintiff's note of issue since no action was pending when the note of issue was filed. Plaintiff's cross motion to restore the case to the Trial Calendar was not the proper remedy. We have held that in these circumstances a case may not be restored in the absence of a motion to vacate the default, with the showing required on such a motion. (Chavoustie v Village of Newark, 52 A.D.2d 1064; Colucci v Slippery Slats All That, 52 A.D.2d 1083), decided May 28, 1976; McIntire Assoc. v Glens Falls Ins. Co., 41 A.D.2d 692). If we were to reach the merits on plaintiff's cross motion, we would hold that plaintiff has totally failed to set forth any fact which would indicate that its cause of action is meritorious.


Summaries of

Honeoye Falls-Lima Cent. Sch. v. Leo J. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1976
53 A.D.2d 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Honeoye Falls-Lima Cent. Sch. v. Leo J. Roth

Case Details

Full title:HONEOYE FALLS-LIMA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. LEO J. ROTH…

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

Date published: Jul 12, 1976

Citations

53 A.D.2d 1044 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Mills v. Pisani

Thus, the court properly refused to vacate those parts of the prior order and judgment granting those parts…