From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2004
2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50501 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)

Opinion

2003-854 QC.

Decided February 26, 2004.

Appeal by plaintiffs from so much of an order of the Civil Court, Queens County (P. Donohue, J.), entered on December 5, 2000, as, upon granting their motion for reargument, denied their motion seeking vacatur of the order dismissing the action and restoration of the matter to the calendar.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

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


Plaintiffs did not move to restore the case to the trial calendar within one year after it was stricken therefrom. Plaintiffs were required to show a reasonable excuse for the delay, merits of the case, a lack of intent to abandon and lack of prejudice to the defendant ( Lang v. Wall Street Mortgage Bankers, Ltd., NYLJ, June 10, 1999 [App Term, 2nd 11th Jud Dists]; LoFredo v. CMC Occupational Health Servs., 189 Misc 2d 781; cf. Gonzalez v. First Natl. Supermarket, 232 AD2d 609). In the instant case, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any grounds that would warrant vacating the order dismissing the action.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2004
2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50501 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:HILDA RODRIGUEZ and CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, Appellants, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Feb 26, 2004

Citations

2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50501 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)

Citing Cases

Chavez v. 407 7th Corp.

CPLR 3404 provides that cases in the Supreme Court or the County Court, marked off or stricken from the…

Quamina v. Goodman, 2003-1055 K C

Also inapplicable is the provision governing restoration of a case that has been stricken from the calendar.…