Goodman v. Lempa

• Decision Date: 14 January 2015
• Citation: Goodman v. Lempa, 2015 NY Slip Op 333, 997 N.Y.S.2d 912, 124 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
• Parties: Deborah GOODMAN, appellant, v. Andreas LEMPA, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

124 A.D.3d 581

997 N.Y.S.2d 912

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00333

Deborah GOODMAN, appellant,

v.Andreas LEMPA, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Jan. 14, 2015

Hugh B. Ehrenzweig, Poughquag, N.Y., for appellant.

Ellen B. Holtzman, Nanuet, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, Jr., J.), dated January 6, 2014, which denied her motion to restore the action to the calendar.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the calendar is granted.

It is undisputed that when this action was “marked off” the calendar at a status conference in July 2013, the note of issue had not yet been filed. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue case ( see Dokaj v. Ruxton Tower Ltd. Partnership, 55 A.D.3d 661, 865 N.Y.S.2d 653; Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. Viglotti, 54 A.D.3d 750, 751, 863 N.Y.S.2d 724; Andre v. Bonetto Realty Corp., 32 A.D.3d 973, 974–975, 822 N.Y.S.2d 292). Furthermore, there was no 90–day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor was there any motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the action based upon the plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery ( see Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Gibson, 111 A.D.3d 875, 876, 976 N.Y.S.2d 142; Arroyo v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 17, 19, 970 N.Y.S.2d 229; Mitskevitch v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 1137, 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 662). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the calendar should have been granted.

The plaintiff's remaining contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this...