From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Newsome v. Akins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2004
6 A.D.3d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05003.

Decided April 12, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 21, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated January 16, 2003, granting the defendant's motion to strike the complaint and dismissing the action upon the plaintiffs' default in opposing the motion.

Robert P. Tusa (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for appellant.

Paul Bryan Schneider, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), for respondents.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion to vacate its prior order granting the defendant's motion to strike the complaint and dismissing the action upon the plaintiffs' default in opposing the motion ( see Holt Const. Corp. v. J R Music World, 294 A.D.2d 540; Almonte v. LaTortue, 293 A.D.2d 431).

There is no basis in this record for dismissal of the action. By order dated May 23, 2002, the Supreme Court struck the matter from the trial calendar and held that "[o]nce all discovery has been completed, the plaintiff may move to restore this case to the trial calendar." CPLR 3404 allowed the plaintiffs one year to move to restore the action to the trial calendar and that period had not expired ( see Basetti v. Nour, 287 A.D.2d 126, 134; Smith v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., 308 A.D.2d 573). "It is well settled that a plaintiff seeking to restore a case within one year of it being marked off the calendar need not demonstrate a reasonable excuse, a meritorious action, lack of intent to abandon, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants" ( Brannigan v. Board of Educ., 307 A.D.2d 945, 946; see Acheson v. Shepard, 297 A.D.2d 271; Mannino v. Huntington Hilton Hotel, 295 A.D.2d 577).

PRUDENTI, P.J., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Newsome v. Akins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 2004
6 A.D.3d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Newsome v. Akins

Case Details

Full title:LOUDETTE NEWSOME, et al., respondents, v. WALTER AKINS, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 12, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 405

Citing Cases

Lyons v. Paul

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted. "A plaintiff seeking…