From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zanani v. Savad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 13, 2001
286 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

December 6, 2000.

August 13, 2001.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated August 17, 2000, which denied his motion to restore the action and to place it on the trial calendar.

Bruce D. Cohen, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Joseph J. Haspel, Goshen, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to restore the action and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for consideration on the merits, of that branch of the motion which was to place the action on the trial calendar.

Prior to being placed on the trial calendar, the instant action was marked off after being placed on a special "purge" calendar, and thereafter, dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. Upon learning that the action had been dismissed, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to restore the action and to place the action on the trial calendar. The court denied the motion and the plaintiff appeals.

"CPLR 3404 should be reserved strictly for cases that have reached the trial calendar" ( Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190 [2d Dept., May 14, 2001]). Since the instant action was never on the trial calendar when it was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to restore the action ( see, Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., supra). The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for consideration of that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to place the action on the trial calendar.

RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Zanani v. Savad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 13, 2001
286 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Zanani v. Savad

Case Details

Full title:DORON ZANANI, APPELLANT, v. PAUL SAVAD, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

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

Date published: Aug 13, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
728 N.Y.S.2d 714

Citing Cases

Wasilewicz v. Vil. of Monroe Police Dept

The Supreme Court could have issued an order dismissing the action in its entirety based upon the plaintiffs…

Northpark Associates v. S.H.C. Mergers, Inc.

The Supreme Court denied the parties' respective motion and cross motion because the case had been "marked…