You are here: / / IN 2017 PLAINTIFF MISSED A COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF...

IN 2017 PLAINTIFF MISSED A COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE; IN 2022 PLAINTIFF MADE A MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, RESTORATION IS AUTOMATIC UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s 2022 motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted without considering whether there is a reasonable excuse for the delay. In 2017, plaintiff had failed to meet a court-ordered deadline for filing a note of issue, but no 90-day notice had been served and there was no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. In that circumstance restoration is automatic and there is no specific time frame for a motion to restore:

Pursuant to a compliance conference order dated April 5, 2017, the plaintiff was required to file a note of issue on or before December 8, 2017. The plaintiff did not file a note of issue by that date, and the action was marked “inactive.”

In November 2022, the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the active calendar. … Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to renewal “upon proper papers,” including an affirmation detailing the reasons for the delay in moving for the relief requested. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as denied that branch of his motion which was to restore the action to the active calendar.

Where, as here, a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 … .. Under these circumstances, a motion to restore the action to the calendar should be granted “without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay or whether [he] engaged in dilatory conduct” … . “Moreover, since this action was pre-note of issue and could not properly be marked off the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not required to move to restore the action to the calendar within any specified time frame” … . Rosario v Scudieri, 2024 NY Slip Op 03769, Second Dept 7-10-24

Practice Point: If no 90-day notice has been served and there has been no dismissal pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, restoration of an action to the active calendar is automatic, even five years beyond the court-ordered deadline for filing a note of issue.

 

You might also like
Two Options to Recover on Note and Mortgage; One in Law (Note); One in Equity (Foreclosure)
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POSITION OF TAXI PARTIALLY IN THE ROADWAY WAS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PASSENGER’S INJURIES WHEN PASSENGER WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR APPROACHING FROM THE REAR.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
In Consolidated Actions Started in Different Counties, the County Where the First Action Was Brought is the Proper Venue
Father’s Petition to Relocate to North Carolina Properly Denied
THE PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT A BUS STOP, WHERE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE AREA SAFE, AS OPPOSED TO THE SIDEWALK ABUTTING DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY, WHERE DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF DEFAULT, MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS UNTIMELY, JUDICIARY LAW 489 WAS NOT VIOLATED (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

MOTHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT... PETITIONER, A POLICE PARAMEDIC, INJURED HIS SHOULDER WHEN THE RETRACTABLE PORTION...