From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosser v. Scacalossi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 1988
140 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

May 2, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to deny the plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of this action pursuant to CPLR 3404. "It is well settled that once an action has been dismissed under CPLR 3404, a motion to open the default and restore the case to the calendar * * * require[s] proof of merit * * * lack of prejudice to the opposing party and * * * excusable neglect" (Fluman v TSS Dept. Stores, 100 A.D.2d 838; see also, Paglia v Agrawal, 124 A.D.2d 793, 794, lv dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 946).

This action, which is based upon a February 15, 1978, automobile accident, was commenced on or about June 2, 1978. The case was marked "off calendar" on September 5, 1980, and on September 8, 1981, it was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. There was no activity initiated in the case by the plaintiff until the motion to restore it to the Trial Calendar in September 1986. Further, the plaintiff failed to show either a reasonable excuse for the extended delay or a lack of prejudice to the defendants.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the delay should be excused because the clerk failed to enter the certificate of dismissal. Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404 is automatic, and the entry of such a dismissal is merely ministerial (see, Curtin v Grand Union Co., 124 A.D.2d 918; 3 Park Ave. Co. v New York City Educ. Constr. Fund, 109 A.D.2d 656, 657). In any event, such a failure on the clerk's part offers nothing by way of a reasonable explanation for the extensive delay in the prosecution of this lawsuit (see, Resto v Kohen, 124 A.D.2d 722; Romanoff v St. Vincent's Hosp. Med. Center, 97 A.D.2d 382). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that restoration of the action after such a lengthy delay would not be unduly prejudicial to the defendants (see, Rodriguez v Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 A.D.2d 720, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 874; Public Adm'r of County of N.Y. v Heil Corp., 126 A.D.2d 533). Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rosser v. Scacalossi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 1988
140 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Rosser v. Scacalossi

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA ROSSER, Appellant, v. JOHN SCACALOSSI et al., Defendants and…

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

Date published: May 2, 1988

Citations

140 A.D.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Condro v. Jhaveri

In May 1985 the plaintiffs served and filed a note of issue and statement of readiness but in December 1985…

Tate v. Peninsula Hospital Center

This case was marked off the trial calendar in March 1996 to complete discovery and was automatically…