Syndicate Bldg. Corp. v. Lorber
| Decision Date | 18 May 1993 |
| Citation | 597 N.Y.S.2d 372,193 A.D.2d 506 |
| Parties | SYNDICATE BUILDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fred LORBER, et al. Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MILONAS, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, ROSS and KASSAL, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered April 15, 1992, which denied the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the dismissal of the action is vacated and the motion to restore is granted, without costs.
The plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease. After the defendants answered, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant Lorber. The Supreme Court granted the motion and ordered an inquest to assess damages. After the inquest, the Supreme Court limited Lorber's liability. This court then vacated the order and remitted the matter for a new trial, inter alia, on the issue of damages (128 A.D.2d 381, 512 N.Y.S.2d 674). However, a second inquest was never conducted.
The plaintiff filed a Note of Issue in September of 1989. The action was then scheduled for trial on October 31, 1989. However, on that date, the action was marked off the calendar by the court, sua sponte, after the plaintiff sought an adjournment on the ground that settlement negotiations were in progress. The court indicated that the matter could be restored by stipulation of the plaintiff and the defendant Blitz. The defendant Lorber failed to appear.
After settlement negotiations failed, counsel for the plaintiff, in August of 1990, wrote to Blitz' attorney requesting that he stipulate to restoring the case to the calendar. Receiving no response, counsel for the plaintiff then sought to file a new Note of Issue in February of 1991. However, the clerk of the court refused to file it since the matter could only be restored by motion.
In March of 1991, counsel for Blitz renewed negotiations with counsel for the plaintiff and offered to settle the case for $20,000. On June 27, 1991, counsel for the plaintiff informed defense counsel that his client would accept the offer. The plaintiff's subsequent attempts to conclude the settlement agreement, however, were unsuccessful, and, by letter dated November 29, 1991, informed defense counsel that it would proceed with the litigation.
The plaintiff moved to restore the action on February 27, 1992. The Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that two and one-half years had passed since the matter was marked off the calendar.
It was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar. While a case which has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholos v. Cashelard Restaurant, Inc.
...year is deemed abandoned under CPLR 3404 (see, Weiss v. City of New York, 247 A.D.2d 239, 669 N.Y.S.2d 33; Syndicate Build. Corp. v. Lorber, 193 A.D.2d 506, 507, 597 N.Y.S.2d 372). However, the presumption of abandonment may be rebutted by proof of litigation actually in progress (Syndicate......
-
Mucciola v. City of New York
...Barton v. Jablon, 181 A.D.2d 755, 581 N.Y.S.2d 101; Balducci v. Jason, 133 A.D.2d 436, 519 N.Y.S.2d 656; cf., Syndicate Bldg. Corp. v. Lorber, 193 A.D.2d 506, 597 N.Y.S.2d 372). For these reasons, the judgment appealed from and the order brought up for review should be MANGANO, P.J., and BR......
- Salzano v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)
-
Rodriguez v. Hercules Chemical Co.
...to the Special Referee's report was not such as to indicate the absence of an intent to abandon the case (cf., Syndicate Bldg. Corp. v. Lorber, 193 A.D.2d 506, 597 N.Y.S.2d 372; CCS Communication Control v. Patent, 193 A.D.2d 435, 597 N.Y.S.2d 330). We would also add that plaintiff has fail......