From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nicolich v. Fitzgerald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1999
259 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 29, 1999

Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion is granted.

The action was removed from the trial calendar on mutual consent, inter alia, to allow the defendant to conduct a further physical examination of one of the plaintiffs. It appears that the defendant took no action to conduct the physical examination, and the case was subsequently dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 since the plaintiffs failed to restore the action within one year. These circumstances indicate that the litigation was not abandoned by the plaintiffs, and that CPLR 3404 was not applicable. Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs' motion to restore the action to the trial calendar ( see, Denver v. American Home Prods. Corp., 138 A.D.2d 670; General Staple Co. v. Amtronics, Inc., 81 A.D.2d 877).

Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nicolich v. Fitzgerald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 1999
259 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Nicolich v. Fitzgerald

Case Details

Full title:NORMA A. NICOLICH et al., Appellants, v. ROBERTA M. FITZGERALD, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 29, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 418

Citing Cases

LQ Rlty. Corp. v. Assessor of the Cty. of Nassau

But where the parties have stipulated to remove the case from the calendar, and particularly where it is done…

Jankowicz v. N.Y.C. Health and Hosp. Corp.

These circumstances indicate that the litigation was not abandoned by the plaintiff. Thus, the Supreme Court…