MERTSARIS v. White Cap Pools & Spas Ltd., et al., third-party defendants-respondents.

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Hippocratis MERTSARIS, et al., appellants, v. PAOLO & SONS CONSTRUCTION CORP., defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent, John Carusone, defendant-respondent; White Cap Pools & Spas Ltd., et al., third-party defendants-respondents.

Decided: October 25, 1999

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ. Sheldon May, Rockville Centre, N.Y., for appellants. Patrick L. MacDonnell (Klein, DiSomma & McGlynn, New York, N.Y. [Martin M. McGlynn] of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent. Graham, Stephens & McMorrow, Westbury, N.Y. (Thomas J. Graham of counsel), for defendant-respondent. Molod Spitz DeSantis & Stark, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Frederick M. Molod, Susan D. Smodish, and Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent Maximum Licensed Electrical Contracting Corp. Arlene Zalayet, Mineola, N.Y., for third-party defendant-respondent Norton Plumbing & Heating Corporation.

In an action to recover damages for the negligent construction of a residence, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated October 15, 1998, which denied their motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 and to restore the case to the trial calendar.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In seeking to restore their action to the trial calendar after it was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiffs were required to show the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party if the case is restored to the calendar (see, McKenna v. Solomon, 255 A.D.2d 496, 681 N.Y.S.2d 59;  Tate v. Peninsula Hosp. Ctr., 255 A.D.2d 503, 680 N.Y.S.2d 609;  Jeffs v. Janessa, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 504, 641 N.Y.S.2d 75).  Because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy these requirements, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion (see, Fico v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 248 A.D.2d 432, 669 N.Y.S.2d 380;  Carter v. City of New York, 231 A.D.2d 485, 647 N.Y.S.2d 28).


Copied to clipboard