From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baez v. Kayantas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2002
298 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2002-03696

Argued September 5, 2002.

October 15, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated March 12, 2002, as granted the plaintiff's motion to "restore" the case to the trial calendar.

Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (Dawn C. DeSimone of counsel), for appellants.

Jaghab, Jaghab Jaghab, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Matthew Fleischer of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

CPLR 3404 is inapplicable because the case was never marked off pursuant to that provision. Rather, the case was mistakenly marked settled by the court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly restored the case to its prior position on the trial calendar (see Hernandez v. City of New York, 290 A.D.2d 416).

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Baez v. Kayantas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2002
298 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Baez v. Kayantas

Case Details

Full title:REINZ BAEZ, respondent, v. KOSTAS KAYANTAS, ET AL., appellants

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 389

Citing Cases

Sirkis v. Cohen

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion to "restore" the action to active status ( see…

Santana v. Vargas

Rather, the Supreme Court's order dated June 1, 2007, indicates that the case was marked "settled" after the…