You are here: / / THE ONE YEAR TIME-LIMIT IN CPLR 3404 FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE AN ACTION...

THE ONE YEAR TIME-LIMIT IN CPLR 3404 FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE AN ACTION TO THE CALENDAR DID NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE WHERE THE ACTION WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined CPLR 3404, which requires a motion to restore an action to the calendar be made within one year, did not apply here where the action was administratively dismissed:

The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring a certain deed null and void. In November 2017, the plaintiffs moved, among other things, to extend their time to file a note of issue. Subsequently, this action was administratively dismissed on December 26, 2017, for failure to file a note of issue, and the plaintiffs’ motion was “marked off” the calendar on January 10, 2018. On or about January 31, 2019, the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, to restore the action to the active calendar. In an order dated February 26, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that they had failed to move to restore the action within the one-year time limit of CPLR 3404. The plaintiffs appeal.

CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action … . Since the action could not properly be marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiffs were “not required to move to restore within any specified time frame” … . Further, there was neither a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 … , nor an order dismissing the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 … . Wynn v Wynn-Wright, 2022 NY Slip Op 00466, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

You might also like
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER THE AGREEMENT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OVERREACHING, HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY’S FEES IN EXCESS OF WHAT COURT AWARDED NOT AVAILABLE, NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENT FOR APPELLATE WORK WITHOUT A RETAINER AGREEMENT, LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT IN MATRIMONIAL MATTERS IS MANDATORY.
HANDCUFFING PLAINTIFF DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT CAUSED NO PHYSICAL INJURY AND WAS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IN A PROCEEDING INTERRUPTED BY COVID THE JUDGE RULED ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD AND MOTHER’S CROSS-PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY WITHOUT COMPLETING THE HEARING; REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
RETURN OF THE CHILDREN TO MOTHER AFTER A TEMPORARY REMOVAL WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (SECOND DEPT).
“Voluntary Payment Doctrine” Explained and Applied to Preclude Recovery
UNINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER (GEICO) WAS ENTITLED TO A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING TO RESOLVE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE HIT AND RUN WAS INSURED (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPELLATE DIVISION REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE, IN PART BECAUSE THE SENTENCING JUDGE MAY HAVE BEEN REACTING TO CRITICISM OF HOW THE TRIAL WAS HANDLED (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SIGNATURES ON THE NOTE AND DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF RECEIPT... THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE CIGARETTE MARKETING...