From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MacDougal Equities v. North Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 22, 1996
232 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 22, 1996.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered March 30, 1995, which denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate a CPLR 3404 dismissal of the action and to restore it to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


The motion to restore was properly denied in the absence of a showing of activity during the year following the striking of the action from the calendar indicative of plaintiffs' intent not to abandon the action (CPLR 3404; see, Curtin v Grand Union Co., 124 AD2d 918, 919), Indeed, there does not appear to have been any activity for a period of some three and a half years following the striking of the action from the calendar. Plaintiffs' excuse that their attorney did not know that the case had been struck until she attempted to file a note of issue does not explain the three-year delay in filing the note of issue after disclosure had been completed.


Summaries of

MacDougal Equities v. North Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 22, 1996
232 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

MacDougal Equities v. North Realty Co.

Case Details

Full title:MACDOUGAL EQUITIES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. NORTH REALTY CO. et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 22, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 551

Citing Cases

Spivey v. Bouteureira

t the case had been marked off the trial calendar at a pretrial conference at which plaintiff was directed to…

Kidwell v. Xerox Corporation

The primary cause of the delay and inactivity in the case was due to plaintiff's failure to contact her…