ODOM v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2004)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Janie ODOM, respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, appellant.

Decided: June 21, 2004

ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, and STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Lawrence A. Silver of counsel), for appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 10, 2003, which granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a late note of issue.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the precalendar order did not contain a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216. Therefore, the court could not dismiss the action based on neglect to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see O'Connell v. City Wide Auto Leasing, 6 A.D.3d 682, 775 N.Y.S.2d 543; Akpinar v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 302 A.D.2d 337, 753 N.Y.S.2d 889; Murray v. Smith Corp., 296 A.D.2d 445, 447, 744 N.Y.S.2d 901). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a late note of issue.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law