From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hernandez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 14, 2002
290 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-01660

Submitted December 12, 2001.

January 14, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated January 16, 2000, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the third-party defendant separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Paul L. Herzfeld of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Landman Corsi Ballaine Ford, P.C., New York, N.Y. (James M. Woolsey III, Andrew Keaveney, and Karen R. Dallow of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.

Mallilo Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Marie-Fabienne F. DeCastro of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, ACTING P.J., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate the elements necessary to restore an action to the trial calendar established under CPLR 3404 (see generally, Basetti v. Nour, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Oct. 1, 2001]). We agree with the Supreme Court that the evidence demonstrated that the case in fact was not marked off, struck from the calendar, or unanswered on a clerk's calendar call. Rather, the evidence indicated that the case was marked discontinued as a result of a clerk's error. Thus, the case was not subject to the provisions of CPLR 3404, and the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion and restored the action to its prior place on the calendar.

In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied the belated motion of the appellant City of New York for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212[a]; Neves v. Port Authority of N.Y. N.J., 265 A.D.2d 393, 394).

RITTER, ACTING P.J., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hernandez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 14, 2002
290 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Hernandez v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:EDUARDO HERNANDEZ, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant third-party…

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

Date published: Jan 14, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 604

Citing Cases

Sherry v. Sherry

The plaintiff's motion was not supported by any proof tending to establish any excuse for the delay of over…

Murray v. T.W. Smith Corp.

The record is devoid of any evidence that there was a conference scheduled for March 8, 2001, and the Supreme…