From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams Corp v. Roma Fragrances Cosmetics

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 23, 1990
166 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

October 23, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).


CPLR 3404 provides that a case marked "off" or struck from the calendar shall be automatically dismissed, as abandoned, for neglect to prosecute. The IAS court found it "clear" from the "court records" that the entire action was marked off the Trial Calendar on July 2, 1986. We find no evidence in the record to support cross-plaintiffs' claim that the "marking off" was on consent or with any conditions attached. While it is arguable that the action was not marked off the Trial Calendar due to cross-plaintiffs' default or neglect, CPLR 3404 nonetheless requires restoration of the case to the court calendar within one year to avoid the presumption of abandonment (see, e.g., Hillegass v. Duffy, 148 A.D.2d 677).

Cross-plaintiffs here undertook no action to restore this matter to Trial Calendar for 33 months until the cross motion to formally dismiss the case was made. Moreover, during the interim period, while the action was marked "off", there was no activity by the parties which would negate the presumption of intent to abandon (see, Marco v. Sachs, 10 N.Y.2d 542, 550; Rodriguez v Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 A.D.2d 720, 722). Indeed, there appear to have been several occasions, such as the dissolution of cross-plaintiffs' counsels' law firm and the death of cross-plaintiffs' corporate president, when it would have been logical for counsel to contact the cross-defendants regarding this action. However, nothing was done.

Additionally, cross-plaintiffs have not sustained their burden of demonstrating merit to the action. Cross-plaintiffs' cross-moving papers are insufficient in that they fail to include an affidavit of merit by a person who would be competent to attest to evidentiary facts at a trial. (See, Rodriguez v. Middle Atl. Auto Leasing, 122 A.D.2d, supra, at 722.)

Based upon the entire record, we conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the action, as abandoned, pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Williams Corp v. Roma Fragrances Cosmetics

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 23, 1990
166 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Williams Corp v. Roma Fragrances Cosmetics

Case Details

Full title:M.J. WILLIAMS CORP., Plaintiff, v. ROMA FRAGRANCES AND COSMETICS, LTD., et…

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

Date published: Oct 23, 1990

Citations

166 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 1

Citing Cases

Threatt v. Seton Health System Inc.

It is well settled that CPLR 3404 dismissals are accomplished automatically upon the passage of one year…

Perez v. New York City Housing Authority

Here, plaintiff made no effort whatever to restore the matter, and, in response to defendant's motion to…