AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
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)
Judges

BILL AKPINAR, respondent, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The preliminary conference order in this case directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue on or before September 25, 1999. Apparently, the action was dismissed when the plaintiff failed to do so. The plaintiff then moved, among other things, in effect, to vacate the dismissal. The Supreme Court granted the motion to the extent of restoring the action to "the active calendar" and extending the plaintiff's time to file a note of issue, indicating that the case had been placed on "the inactive calendar" when the plaintiff failed to file a note of issue.

The record is unclear as to whether this action was dismissed or purportedly "marked off" the active calendar when the plaintiff failed to file a note of issue. If the action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216, such dismissal was improper. A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met (see Murray v. Smith Corp., 296 A.D.2d 445, 447). Here, the preliminary conference order merely set a date for the filing of a note of issue and cannot be deemed a 90-day demand since it does not satisfy the statutory preconditions (see Murray v. Smith Corp., supra). In any event, even if the action was properly dismissed, the plaintiff established a reasonable excuse for failing to file a note of issue and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216[e]; cf. Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499, 503).

To the extent that the case may have been removed from active status, such action is equivalent to marking off a pre-note of issue case, a practice which is not permitted (see Johnson v. Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 295 A.D.2d 567; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190).

Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action and properly extended the plaintiff's time to file a note of issue.

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

AKPINAR v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS
(Feb 4, 2003)