CHEW v. Michael L. Dunlap, “John Doe” and/or “Jane Doe”, Respondents-Undertenants-Respondents. (2025)

Order (Travis J. Arrindell, J.), dated August 7, 2023, affirmed, without costs.

Courts have discretion to grant a restoration motion brought more than one year after a case is stricken from the calendar provided the movant demonstrates (a) the merits of the claim; (b) a lack of prejudice to the opposing party; (c) a lack of intent to abandon the action; and (d) a reasonable excuse for the delay (see Kaufman v Bauer, 36 AD3d 481, 482 [2007]). Here, landlords, who brought the motion to restore this “summary” holdover proceeding in July 2022, eight years after it was marked off the calendar in 2014, failed to make the requisite showing of a reasonable excuse for the delay, and further failed to demonstrate that restoration of the proceeding, some nine-years after the events underlying the nonprimary residence claim, would not prejudice respondents (see Kamara v Ambert, 89 AD3d 612 [2011]; Benjamin v Teixeira, 78 AD3d 434 [2010]; 85th Columbus Corp. v Grail, 11 Misc 3d 134[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50465[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2006]). Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of landlords’ motion.

In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.