You are here: / / VACATING A NOTE OF ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME AS MARKING A CASE OFF PURSUANT...
,

VACATING A NOTE OF ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME AS MARKING A CASE OFF PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404; WHEN A NOTE OF ISSUE IS VACATED, THE ACTION REVERTS TO A PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE STATUS AND CAN BE RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT MEETING THE STRINGENT CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. The note of issue had been vacated but the action had not been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404. Therefore the criteria for restoring an action that had been marked off for more than a year did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 3404, “[a] case . . . marked ‘off’ or struck from the calendar . . . and not restored within one year thereafter, shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed without costs for neglect to prosecute.” “A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it has been marked ‘off,’ and after the case has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must demonstrate a [potentially] 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” … .

Here, the order … vacating the note of issue was not equivalent to an order marking “off” or striking the case from the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 … . Thus, CPLR 3404 did not apply “because the case reverted to its pre-note of issue status once the note of issue was vacated” … As it is undisputed that there was neither a 90-day demand served upon the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3216 nor an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and that discovery is complete, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar … . Carrero v Pena, 2023 NY Slip Op 03448, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Restoring an action to the calendar after it has been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404 for more than a year is subject to the stringent requirements of CPLR 3404. But vacating a note of issue, as opposed to marking off the case, restores the action to pre-note of issue status and the action can be restored without meeting the CPLR 3404 requirements because CPLR 3404 is not applicable.

 

You might also like
A DISMISSAL BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR TO OPPOSE A MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE HAS NO RES JUDICATA EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SUPERVISORS’ FAILURE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION BY THE COMPANY PRESIDENT CONSTITUTED AIDING AND ABETTING DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION.
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT ANY PART OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE OFFICERS’ DECIDING NOT TO ARREST PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SON AFTER AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN HER AND HER SON WAS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ATTACK BY HER SON RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Questions of Fact About Whether Amusement Ride On Sidewalk Created an Inherently Dangerous Condition and Whether the Hazard Was Latent or Open and Obvious
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY NAMING PLAINTIFF IN HER CAPACITY AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HER HUSBAND’S ESTATE, WHERE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS ERRONEOUSLY BROUGHT IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BACKHOE WHICH COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN USED FOR ROADWORK THAT DAY, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE BACKHOE WAS BEING USED TO TRANSPORT GRAVEL TO THE WORK SITE; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE BACKHOE WAS NOT “ACTIVELY ENGAGED” IN ROADWORK AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD FOR LIABILITY IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW DID NOT APPLY (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY”... AN ATTORNEY’S REFERENCE IN AN EMAIL TO A NONPARTY AS A “WIFE BEATER”...