Mitskevitch v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 30 November 2010 |
| Citation | 911 N.Y.S.2d 662,78 A.D.3d 1137 |
| Parties | Lioudmila MITSKEVITCH, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant, M.R.O.D. Realty Corp., appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Marcy Sonneborn and Alice Spitz of counsel), for appellant.
William Pager, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant M.R.O.D. Realty Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated January 6, 2010, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion to "restore" the action to the calendar.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to restore this action to the calendar. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue case ( see Dergousova v. Long, 37 A.D.3d 645, 830 N.Y.S.2d 330; Lucious v. Rutland Nursing Home of Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 2 A.D.3d 412, 767 N.Y.S.2d 792; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57). Furthermore, there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor was there an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 ( see Clark v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 23 A.D.3d 510, 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). Moreover, contrary to the appellant's contention, this action could not have properly been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126 based upon the plaintiff's failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, since there was no motion requesting this relief and the plaintiff was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on this issue ( see CPLR 3124; 3126; Xand Corp. v. Reliable Sys. Alternatives Corp., 35 A.D.3d 849, 827 N.Y.S.2d 269; Postel v. New York Univ. Hosp., 262 A.D.2d 40, 42, 691 N.Y.S.2d 468).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Servs.
...at 194, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57), and no order was issued dismissing the action under 22 NYCRR 202.27 ( see Mitskevitch v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 1137, 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 662;Grant v. County of Nassau, 28 A.D.3d 714, 814 N.Y.S.2d 219;Clark v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 23 A.D.3d 510, 511......
-
Christiano v. Heatherwood House at Holbrook II, LLC
...581, 997 N.Y.S.2d 912 ; 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 plaintiffs' motion to restore the action to active status and to extend the time to serve and fi......
-
Arroyo v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y.
...Varricchio v. Sterling, 86 A.D.3d 535, 536, 926 N.Y.S.2d 320;Wasif v. Khan, 82 A.D.3d 1084, 919 N.Y.S.2d 203;Mitskevitch v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 1137, 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 662;Grant v. County of Nassau, 28 A.D.3d 714, 814 N.Y.S.2d 219;Clark v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 23 A.D.3d......
-
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Gibson
...91 A.D.3d 867, 868, 936 N.Y.S.2d 908; Varricchio v. Sterling, 86 A.D.3d 535, 536, 926 N.Y.S.2d 320; Mitskevitch v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 1137, 1138, 911 N.Y.S.2d 662; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 725 N.Y.S.2d 57). Further, there was neither a 90–day notice pursuan......