From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lebron v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 28, 1999
257 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 28, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.).


The motion to restore was properly treated as one to vacate a CPLR 3404 automatic dismissal ( see, Syndicate Bldg. Corp. v. Lorber, 193 A.D.2d 506, 507; Kassover v. Diamonds Run, 193 A.D.2d 515). The motion was properly granted upon a showing of merit made in the verified complaint ( see, Salch v. Paratore, 60 N.Y.2d 851; Lisojo v. Phillip, 188 A.D.2d 369), a reasonable excuse for the 15 months it took plaintiff to serve the amended bill of particulars anticipated in the parties' stipulation, including extensive medical treatment during that period and difficulties in procuring medical records pertaining to that treatment, and an absence of prejudice to defendant attributable to the delay ( see, Kassover v. Diamonds Run, supra; Solow v. Stuart, 223 A.D.2d 458). We note in the latter regard that the stipulation did not limit the time plaintiff had to serve an amended bill of particulars, and that it does not appear that plaintiff's condition had stabilized long before he served his amended bill of particulars.

Concur — Williams, J.P., Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Lebron v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 28, 1999
257 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Lebron v. New York City Housing Authority

Case Details

Full title:JOSE LEBRON, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 28, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 27

Citing Cases

Zenteno v. Geils

In March 2004 the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a…

Ramputi v. Timko Contracting Corp.

Denial of plaintiffs' motion to restore was an improvident exercise of discretion. Plaintiffs clearly…