From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quamina v. Goodman

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, 2nd and 11th Districts, Second Department
Nov 7, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 51798 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)

Opinion

2003-1055 K C.

Decided November 7, 2005.

Appeal from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arthur Schack, J.), entered June 20, 2003 and November 13, 2003. The order entered June 20, 2003 granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The order entered November 13, 2003, denied plaintiff's motion to reargue.

Order entered June 20, 2003 reversed without costs and defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint denied.

Appeal from order entered November 13, 2003 dismissed.

PRESENT: PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.


Since more than a year had elapsed from the joinder of issue and no note of issue was filed in Supreme Court prior to the transfer of this case to Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d) and, thereafter, no notice of trial was filed in Civil Court, defendants, before moving to dismiss the complaint, were required to provide plaintiff with a written demand, pursuant to CPLR 3216, to resume prosecution of the action by filing a notice of trial within 90 days ( see also Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPLR C3216, at 620-624; 22 NYCRR 208.15). Inasmuch as defendants failed to file such notice, the court below improperly granted their motion to dismiss. Furthermore, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument ( see DeFritas v. Board of Educ. of City of Mount Vernon Dist. No. 416, 129 AD2d 672). Consequently, the appeal from the November order denying plaintiff's motion to reargue is dismissed.

Golia and Rios, JJ., Patterson, J.P., concurs in a separate memorandum.


While I concur with the majority opinion, I would add that the basis for the Court's dismissal below was CPLR 3404, which does not apply to Civil Court cases ( see LoFredo v. CMC Occupational Health Services, P.C., 189 Misc 2d 781 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2001]; Chavez v. 407 Seventh Avenue Corp., No. 2004-952 [dissenting opinion of Patterson, J.] [decided herewith]).


Summaries of

Quamina v. Goodman

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, 2nd and 11th Districts, Second Department
Nov 7, 2005
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 51798 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)
Case details for

Quamina v. Goodman

Case Details

Full title:AGNES QUAMINA, Appellant, v. JUDITH GOODMAN and ARNOLD GOODMAN, Respondents

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, 2nd and 11th Districts, Second Department

Date published: Nov 7, 2005

Citations

2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 51798 (N.Y. App. Term 2005)