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)

EDUARDO HERNANDEZ, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant; PIERRE HOTEL, third-party defendant-appellant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate the elements necessary to restore an action to the trial calendar established under CPLR 3404 (see generally, Basetti v. Nour, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Oct. 1, 2001]). We agree with the Supreme Court that the evidence demonstrated that the case in fact was not marked off, struck from the calendar, or unanswered on a clerk's calendar call. Rather, the evidence indicated that the case was marked discontinued as a result of a clerk's error. Thus, the case was not subject to the provisions of CPLR 3404, and the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion and restored the action to its prior place on the calendar.

In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied the belated motion of the appellant City of New York for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212[a]; Neves v. Port Authority of N.Y. N.J., 265 A.D.2d 393, 394).

RITTER, ACTING P.J., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HERNANDEZ v. CITY OF NEW YORK
(Jan 14, 2002)