Scahill Law Group P.C. Logo

Only published on occasion and it is 100% Spam FREE!
See News Example here.

Kopilas v. Peterson, 206 A.D.2d 460 (2d Dept 1994)

Plaintiff’s action was marked off the calendar on consent. The action then was stagnant for 17 months, when plaintiff then contacted defendant to restore the action. The Appellate Division reversed.

“A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party in the event that the case is restored to the trial calendar." Plaintiffs met none of these elements. Plaintiffs offered no adequate excuse for the 17 month delay. “Although the agreement to restore on consent is some indication that the plaintiffs did not intend to abandon the action, the agreement alone is an insufficient ground upon which to predicate restoration, especially since there was no activity in the case during the period it was off the calendar.” Plaintiffs also failed to submit evidence of a meritorious cause of action, and failed to show that defendants would not be prejudiced.

Small logo
Scahill Law Group P.C.
1065 Stewart Avenue, Suite 210
Bethpage, NY 11714
(516) 294-5200
(516) 873-6229

Copyright © 2020-2022 Scahill Law Group P.C. (Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Read our Terms of Use)
Site design by Ralph Rosario

crossmenu linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram