- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
PEKER v. KAPLAN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Jan 31, 2000
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A party moving pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore a case to the trial calendar must demonstrate that the case has merit, there is a reasonable excuse for the delay, there was no intent to abandon the matter, and there is no prejudice to the nonmoving party (see, Moses v. Wilmaud Realty Corp., 262 A.D.2d 538 [2d Dept., June 21, 1999]; Yacono v. Waterman S.S. Co., 216 A.D.2d 556 ). As the plaintiff failed to satisfy these requirements, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to restore the case to the trial calendar.
RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.
x
Alert
Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.