Burdick v. Marcus
| Decision Date | 11 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2004-07547. |
| Citation | 17 A.D.3d 388,792 N.Y.S.2d 356,2005 NY Slip Op 02787 |
| Parties | THOMAS BURDICK, Respondent, v. JAMES MARCUS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to "restore" this action to the calendar after it had been marked inactive due to the plaintiff's failure to appear at a compliance conference. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action (see Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190 [2001]), there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, and there was no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. Accordingly, the motion was properly granted and that branch of the cross motion which was to dismiss the action was properly denied (see 123X Corp. v McKenzie, 7 AD3d 769 [2004]; Lucious v Rutland Nursing Home of Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 2 AD3d 412 [2003]; Gendus v Sheraton/Atlantic City W., 302 AD2d 427 [2003]; Torres v Nu-Way Mach. Corp. Co., 296 AD2d 545 [2002]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Servs.
...v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d at 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 662;Casavecchia v. Mizrahi, 62 A.D.3d 741, 742, 877 N.Y.S.2d 906;Burdick v. Marcus, 17 A.D.3d 388, 792 N.Y.S.2d 356;123X Corp. v. McKenzie, 7 A.D.3d 769, 776 N.Y.S.2d 893;Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d at 191, 725 N.Y.S.2d 5......
-
Tolmasova v. Umarova
...dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see Clark v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 23 A.D.3d 510, 511, 806 N.Y.S.2d 633; Burdick v. Marcus, 17 A.D.3d 388, 792 N.Y.S.2d 356; 123X Corp. v. McKenzie, 7 A.D.3d 769, 776 N.Y.S.2d 893). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the a......
-
Butler v. Bd. of Trustees New York City Fire Dep't Pension Fund
...City of New York, 78 A.D.3d at 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 662; Casavecchia v. Mizrahi, 62 A.D.3d 741, 742, 877 N.Y.S.2d 906; Burdick v. Marcus, 17 A.D.3d 388, 792 N.Y.S.2d 356). Accordingly, upon reargument, the petitioner's motion to restore the proceeding to active status should have been granted......
-
Varricchio v. Sterling
...v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d at 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 662; Casavecchia v. Mizrahi, 62 A.D.3d 741, 742, 877 N.Y.S.2d 906; Burdick v. Marcus, 17 A.D.3d 388, 792 N.Y.S.2d 356; 123X Corp. v. McKenzie, 7 A.D.3d 769, 776 N.Y.S.2d 893). Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was t......