You are here: / / SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL...

SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL IN FEDERAL COURT RUNS FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL RECONSIDERATION MOTION, NOT FROM THE INITIAL FEDERAL DISMISSAL.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the six-months within which plaintiff was required to file his state action after dismissal in federal court (CPLR 205(a)) ran from the federal court’s ruling on plaintiff’s reconsideration motion, not from the initial dismissal in federal court:

Plaintiff was not required to commence a defamation action in state court while the reconsideration motion was pending, or to file a notice of appeal in federal court, in order to gain the benefit of the six-month extension … ; were our decision otherwise, the result would waste judicial resources by forcing a party to commence either a federal appeal or a new state court action while his or her case was still ongoing in federal court. Arty v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01626, 1st Dept 3-2-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL IN FEDERAL COURT RUNS FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL RECONSIDERATION MOTION, NOT FROM THE INITIAL FEDERAL DISMISSAL)/RECONSIDER, MOTION TO (SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL IN FEDERAL COURT RUNS FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL RECONSIDERATION MOTION, NOT FROM THE INITIAL FEDERAL DISMISSAL)/RECOMMENCE ACTION (SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL IN FEDERAL COURT RUNS FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL RECONSIDERATION MOTION, NOT FROM THE INITIAL FEDERAL DISMISSAL)

You might also like
Condominium Unit Owner Has Common Law Right to Examine Books
SM STABBED INFANT PLAINTIFF SHORTLY AFTER BEING TREATED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WHICH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DETAIN OR REPORT SM; ALTHOUGH SM DID NOT WAIVE THE PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF SM’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND DISCLOSURE OF ANY RELEVANT NONMEDICAL INFORMATION (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION–A STEEP EMBANKMENT NEXT TO A GRASSY WALKWAY–SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE SAFE BY THE INSTALLATION OF A RAILING OR BARRIER (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN 120 CASES; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISQUALIFIED HIM (FIRST DEPT).
THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT) REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
THE GUARANTEES QUALIFED AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY AND SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT; ONLY PURELY LEGAL ARGUMENTS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE... PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION SHE SAW A DENT IN A WAXY SUBSTANCE MADE BY HER...