You are here: / / THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 FOR FAILURE...
,

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND OTHER CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO DISMISSAL WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order dismissing the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216 should not have been granted:

The conditional order constituted a defective 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. The court was without authority to issue a 90-day notice since issue was not joined in the action (see CPLR 3216[b][1] … ). Moreover, the conditional order failed to state that the plaintiff’s failure to comply “will serve as a basis for a motion” by the court to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute … . The purported dismissal was not properly effectuated since the court never directed the parties to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, and failed to issue a formal order of dismissal on notice to the parties as required by CPLR 3216 … . Moreover, the conditional order was erroneous since it directed the plaintiff to move for an order of reference, even though the plaintiff had already moved for an order of reference. Accordingly, we grant the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the conditional order and restore the action to the active calendar. U.S. Bank N.A. v Thompson, 2020 NY Slip Op 08098, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

You might also like
Waiver and Release Signed by Plaintiff When She Rented a Segway Vehicle Precluded Her Personal Injury Action Even Though the Accident Occurred During a Tour Conducted by Defendant’s Employees
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DAMAGES WERE INCURRED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE, HIS AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RULE A HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Give the Jury Instruction on Intoxication Required Reversal
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE TWO CHILDREN IN ITS PLACEMENT DECISION; STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (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).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY OR INCREASED PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Liability for Lead Paint Exposure Described

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 BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT... THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED ON HEARSAY;...