You are here: / / IF THE NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN VACATED, THE CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORING...

IF THE NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN VACATED, THE CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORING THE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR DO NOT APPLY; THERFORE THE MOTION TO RESTORE NEED NOT BE MADE WITHIN A YEAR AND NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITIORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION, REASONABLE EXCUSE, NO INTENT TO ABANDON, AND LACK OF PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. Although the action had been stricken from the trial calendar more than a year before, the requirements of CPLR 3404 (demonstration of a meritorious cause of action, reasonable excuse, no intent to abandon and lack of prejudice to defendant) did not apply because the note of issue had been vacated:

Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s renewed motion to restore the action to the active calendar. While a party moving to restore an action more than one year after it was stricken from the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendant … , CPLR 3404 did not apply here because the case reverted to its pre-note of issue status once the note of issue was vacated … . “[S]ince this action could not properly be marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not obligated to move to restore within any specified time frame,” or to establish his entitlement to restoration of the action under the standard applicable to automatic dismissals pursuant to CPLR 3404 … . Thus, in the absence of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff’s renewed motion should have been granted … . Insuasti v La Boom Disco, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05684, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Once an action has been stricken from the trial calendar, CPLR 3404 requires that a motion to restore be made within a year and demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, reasonable excuse, no intent to abandon, and lack of prejudice to defendant. However, CPLR 3404 does not apply where, as here, the note of issue has been vacated and no 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 has been made.

 

You might also like
IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IMPUTING TOO MUCH INCOME TO AND AWARDING TOO LITTLE MAINTENANCE TO PLAINTIFF WIFE; IN ADDITION DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED 50% OF THE VALUE OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS AND THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED A POSTTRIAL VALUATION OF THE BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIRMATION CONTESTING SERVICE DID NOT CONFORM TO NEW YORK LAW AND THEREFORE DID NOT REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).
A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHICH DOES NOT STATE THE FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS WOULD BE THE BASIS OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IS INEFFECTIVE AND CAN BE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
LAW OFFICE CONFUSION NOT A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE FOR BANK ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO ATTEND A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​
FRYE HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER “OTHER UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC” DISORDER IS A DIAGNOSIS WHICH IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES.
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING NOT DUPLICATIVE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION.

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

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR... DEFENDANT’S GENERAL AWARENESS THAT PUDDLES FORMED IN THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S...