You are here: / / THE 2019 MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO ACTIVE STATUS AFTER THE NOTE OF...
,

THE 2019 MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO ACTIVE STATUS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS VACATED IN 2012 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; LACHES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OF A 90-DAY DEMAND PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the traffic accident action to active status in 2019 after the note of issue had been vacated in 2012 should have been granted. The doctrine of laches does not apply where there has been not service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216:

CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action … . Further, there was neither a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 … , nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant 22 NYCRR 202.27 … .

Moreover, “[t]he doctrine of laches does not provide [a] basis to dismiss a complaint where there has been no service of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), and where the case management devices of CPLR 3404 and 22 NYCRR 202.27 are inapplicable” … . “The procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay where the plaintiff has not been served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)” … . In the absence of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to active status should have been granted … . Guillebeaux v Parrott, 2020 NY Slip Op 06762, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE PROVISION RE LIABILITY FOR EXCAVATION DAMAGE WERE MET, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Co-Tenant Acquired Entire Parcel by Adverse Possession
A SELLER WHO BREACHES OR SABOTAGES A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT CANNOT RELY ON REMEDY LIMITATION CLAUSES TO PRECLUDE A BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BROKER MAY HAVE REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF BE ADDED TO THE INSURANCE POLICY, THE BROKER ALLEGEDLY DID NOT VERIFY THE COVERAGE WAS IN PLACE BEFORE ERRONEOUSLY REPRESENTING TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT IT WAS INSURED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BROKER BREACHED A COMMON-LAW OR CONTRACTUAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
DENYING FATHER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY AND HIS RIGHT TO A FULL AND FAIR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE POLICE “COMMUNITY CARETAKING FUNCTION;” BUT THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONING WHICH LED TO DEFENDANT’S DWI ARREST WAS “COMMENSURATE WITH ANY PERCEIVED NEED FOR ASSISTANCE;” INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
In a Prohibition Proceeding Brought Under Article 78, Trial Judge’s Mistrial Order Deemed Improper, Retrial Precluded​

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

DEFENDANTS’ MEDICAL EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BASED UPON... THE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF ANY PRIOR ROBBERIES OCCURRING IN THE BUILDING,...