From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klevanskaya v. Khanimova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 1, 2005
21 A.D.3d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

August 1, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated July 1, 2004, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the calendar.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no evidence in the record that this case was dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to appear at a compliance conference ( see 22 NYCRR 202.27). Furthermore, CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action ( see Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190), and there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to restore this action to the calendar after it had been marked inactive ( see Burdick v. Marcus, 17 AD3d 388; Bar-El v. Key Food Stores Co., Inc., 11 AD3d 420; Auguste v. Linden Gardens Condominium, 8 AD3d 414; 123X Corp. v. McKenzie, 7 AD3d 769).


Summaries of

Klevanskaya v. Khanimova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 1, 2005
21 A.D.3d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Klevanskaya v. Khanimova

Case Details

Full title:IZABELLA KLEVANSKAYA, Respondent, v. BOURKHO KHANIMOVA, Doing Business as…

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

Date published: Aug 1, 2005

Citations

21 A.D.3d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
798 N.Y.S.2d 912

Citing Cases

Safena v. Giuliano

The "marking off" of a pre-note of issue case is not permitted ( see Khaolead v Leisure Video, 18 AD3d 829;…

Rosario v. Ortiz Funeral Home

This is not the equivalent of marking a post-note case off the trial calendar ( see Reitman v St. Francis…