Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

STANLEY OKUN, Respondent, v. PAUL TANNERS, Appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, plaintiffs cross motion to restore the action to the calendar denied and defendant's motion to dismiss the action as abandoned dismissed as unnecessary. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

Under the circumstances, plaintiffs conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure does not constitute a reasonable excuse for the 20-month delay in pursuing the action. Further, plaintiffs inactivity between the time the action was marked off the calendar and defendant's motion to dismiss fails to rebut the presumption of abandonment that arose pursuant to CPLR 3404.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

OKUN v. TANNERS
(Sep 11, 2008)