From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santiago v. Petschauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 3, 1994

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


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 as abandoned because, once the case had remained "marked off" the calendar for over one year, the case was automatically dismissed for neglect to prosecute (see, CPLR 3404; Roberts v. Town of Hempstead 206 A.D.2d 466; Nepomniaschi v. Goldstein, 182 A.D.2d 743). Additionally, the plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to meet his burden of proving that (1) he has a meritorious cause of action, (2) there was reasonable cause for the delay, (3) there was a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) there is no prejudice to the defendant (see, Roberts v. Town of Hempstead, supra; Knight v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 720; Malpass v. Mavis Tire Supply Corp., 143 A.D.2d 890). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ.


Summaries of

Santiago v. Petschauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Santiago v. Petschauer

Case Details

Full title:ERMELINDO SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. JOHN J. PETSCHAUER et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 3, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 1004

Citing Cases

Bonomo v. City of New York

The plaintiff, however, may overcome this automatic dismissal by showing his lack of intent to abandon this…