Opinion
December 2, 1999
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.).
Jonathan D. Shramko, for plaintiff-respondent.
Jeanne A. Barry, for defendants-appellants.
ELLERIN, P.J., ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI, MAZZARELLI, FRIEDMAN, JJ.
As the motion court found, in the present circumstances, defendants have not been prejudiced by the three-year delay between the CPLR 3404 automatic dismissal of the action and the motion to restore (see, Zabari v. City of New York, 242 A.D.2d 15, 18). Indeed, defendants themselves appear to acknowledge that they will not be prejudiced if provided with updated medical records and allowed to conduct a physical examination and another deposition of plaintiff, to all of which plaintiff appears amenable. Furthermore, the case involves defendants' alleged malpractice in prescribing and administering contraindicated medication to plaintiff, and, as such, is not likely to turn on accounts of witnesses with dim memories of long ago events (see,Sanchez v. Javind Apt. Corp., 246 A.D.2d 353, 356). Plaintiff's attorney's law office failure in misplacing the file and not keeping track of its status indicate neglect but not willful default. Plaintiff should not be deprived of her day in court where she shows that her case has merit, there was no intent to abandon the case, and that defendants were not prejudiced by the delay (see, id., at 355-356, citing Martinez v. New York City Tr. Auth., 183 A.D.2d 587).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.