From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruberto v. Kandel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 1991
174 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 17, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In order to have his case restored to the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was required to show a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution, a lack of prejudice to the defendants, and merit to his case (see, Stern v Astino, 161 A.D.2d 757; Ornstein v Kentucky Fried Chicken, 121 A.D.2d 610; Sheehan v Hollywood, 112 A.D.2d 211). Upon review of the record, we find that the plaintiff made the requisite showing and that the Supreme Court, therefore, properly exercised its discretion in restoring this action to the calendar (see, Dramer v Board of Educ., 134 A.D.2d 478; Roeder v Allstate Ins. Co., 115 A.D.2d 469). Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ruberto v. Kandel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 17, 1991
174 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Ruberto v. Kandel

Case Details

Full title:ANNIBLE RUBERTO, Respondent, v. STUART N. KANDEL et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jun 17, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)