From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lourim v. Keystone Shipping Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 27, 2003
302 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2747

February 27, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2001, which denied plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of the case pursuant to CPLR 3404 and restore it to the calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the dismissal vacated and the case restored to the calendar.

BARBARA MATTHEWS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

RICHARD A. MENCHINI, for Defendants-Respondents.

Before: Buckley, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.


Plaintiff's motion to restore his case was denied on the ground that he failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay in completing discovery and filing a note of issue, a criterion for restoration pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see Werner v. Tiffany, 291 A.D.2d 305). However, the very fact that no note of issue was filed renders CPLR 3404 inapplicable to this case (Johnson v. Minskoff Sons, Inc., 287 A.D.2d 233). Dismissal of pre-note of issue cases for want of prosecution is governed by CPLR 3216 (id.). We note in that connection that plaintiff was never served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue (see CPLR 3216[b][3];Arcate v. Cohen, 289 A.D.2d 148).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Lourim v. Keystone Shipping Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 27, 2003
302 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Lourim v. Keystone Shipping Co.

Case Details

Full title:KIRK LOURIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEYSTONE SHIPPING COMPANY, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Feb 27, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
754 N.Y.S.2d 873

Citing Cases

Revell v. New York Cares Organization, Inc.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger, JJ. While it is true that a case which has been…

Grant v. City of New York

This "order" was presumably a computer entry following the calling of a prenote calendar. However, while CPLR…