Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Edward RUDY, etc., respondent, v. Dean CHASKY, et al., appellants.

Decided: April 26, 1999

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ. Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley (Mauro & Goldberg, Great Neck, N.Y. [Kenneth Mauro and Timothy R. Capowski] of counsel), for appellants. Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg, New York, N.Y. (Martin Diennor and Abraham Fuchsberg of counsel), for respondent.

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 5, 1998, which granted the plaintiff's motion, in effect, to vacate the automatic dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff's motion is denied.

 In order to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff must establish:  (1) the merits of the case, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay, (3) the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and (4) the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party if the case is restored to the calendar (see, Robinson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 203 A.D.2d 351, 610 N.Y.S.2d 296;  Hatcher v. Cassanova, 180 A.D.2d 664, 579 N.Y.S.2d 709;  Hagelman v. Sheridan, 150 A.D.2d 430, 540 N.Y.S.2d 737).   All four components must be satisfied before the dismissal can be properly vacated (see, Fico v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 248 A.D.2d 432, 433, 669 N.Y.S.2d 380).   In the instant case, the plaintiff's excuse for his delay in seeking to restore the action to the calendar-law office failure-was not reasonable (see, Rodriguez v. Hercules Chem. Co., 228 A.D.2d 319, 644 N.Y.S.2d 229;  Iorio v. Galeon, 230 A.D.2d 771, 646 N.Y.S.2d 818;  Diamond v. J.B.J. Mgt. Co., 220 A.D.2d 378, 631 N.Y.S.2d 439;  Robinson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 203 A.D.2d 351, 610 N.Y.S.2d 296).   Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion should have been denied.


Copied to clipboard