Source: http://www.thecplrblog.com/2010/03/cplr-r-3404-and-judicial-notice.html
Timestamp: 2018-07-20 18:18:30
Document Index: 371161040

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2309', '§ 299', '§ 1601', '§ 104', '§ 1200', '§ 202', '§ 208', '§ 1702', '§ 1001', '§ 1003', '§ 1004', '§ 1006', '§ 101', '§ 1012', '§ 1013', '§ 1015', '§ 1018', '§ 1021', '§ 1024', '§ 104', '§ 105', '§ 1209', '§ 1401', '§ 1402', '§ 2001', '§ 2002', '§ 2004', '§ 2005', '§ 202', '§ 203', '§ 205', '§ 207', '§ 208', '§ 2105', '§ 212', '§ 213', '§ 214', '§ 215', '§ 217', '§ 2201', '§ 2211', '§ 2303', '§ 2303', '§ 2309', '§ 231', '§ 301', '§ 3012', '§ 3013', '§ 3017', '§ 3018', '§ 302', '§ 3020', '§ 3026', '§ 304', '§ 306', '§ 308', '§ 310', '§ 3101', '§ 3102', '§ 3103', '§ 3104', '§ 311', '§ 3119', '§ 312', '§ 3121', '§ 3123', '§ 3126', '§ 313', '§ 3130', '§ 317', '§ 321', '§ 3213', '§ 3215', '§ 3218', '§ 325', '§ 4001', '§ 4017', '§ 403', '§ 408', '§ 4102', '§ 4106', '§ 4110', '§ 4110', '§ 4113', '§ 4201', '§ 4213', '§ 4301', '§ 4317', '§ 4503', '§ 4504', '§ 4513', '§ 4519', '§ 4545', '§ 4547', '§ 5001', '§ 5002', '§ 5003', '§ 5003', '§ 5004', '§ 501', '§ 5014', '§ 5018', '§ 5019', '§ 503', '§ 504', '§ 505', '§ 510', '§ 5205', '§ 5210', '§ 5221', '§ 5222', '§ 5225', '§ 5241', '§ 5242', '§ 5251', '§ 5304', '§ 5305', '§ 5402', '§ 5501', '§ 5511', '§ 5512', '§ 5520', '§ 5524', '§ 5601', '§ 5701', '§ 602', '§ 6201', '§ 6301', '§ 6501', '§ 6512', '§ 6514', '§ 7507', '§ 7801', '§ 8004', '§ 8012', '§ 8404', '§ 901', '§ 902', '§ 478', '§ 299']

theCPLRblog: CPLR R. 3404 and Judicial Notice
theCPLRblog
NEW YORK DECISIONS
Committee on Civil Practice Laws and Rules
New York Official Reports
No-Fault Resources
USPS - Track & Confirm
No-Fault Regulation 68 - Circular Letters
No-Fault Regulation 68
No Fault Defender
New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (Regulation 83)
New York City Civil Court Directives
Fillable New York No-Fault Forms
Days between two dates
« One way out of a mortgage CPLR R. 3215(c) | Main | An application that shouldn't have been denied »
CPLR R. 3404 and Judicial Notice
CPLR R. 3404 Dismissal of abandoned cases
Matter of Cento Props. Co. v Assessor, 2010 NY Slip Op 02556 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)
In the interim, in or around September 1999, Cento filed a note of issue with respect to the original proceeding. Subsequently, on September 25, 2001, the original proceeding appeared on the trial calendar. On that date, pursuant to certain procedures that former Justice Leo F. McGinity had implemented years earlier in an attempt to reduce the backlog of tax certiorari proceedings on the trial calendar, the original proceeding was removed from the trial calendar so the County could obtain a preliminary appraisal, after which the parties could try to settle the matter. Thereafter, the subsequent related proceedings were marked "inactive pre-note." [*2]
Ultimately, on or about November 21, 2007, with the parties unable to reach a settlement, Cento moved to restore the original proceeding to the trial calendar and, in effect, to restore the subsequent related proceedings to active status. The County opposed restoration of both the original proceeding and the subsequent related proceedings. The Supreme Court denied the motion, after which Cento moved to reargue. Upon granting leave to reargue, the Supreme Court granted Cento's motion to restore, holding that (1) restoration of the original proceeding to the trial calendar is appropriate since Cento satisfied the four-prong test for restoring, to the trial calendar, a matter marked "off" the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 for more than one year, and (2) restoration of the subsequent related proceedings to active status is automatic because the County had failed to serve a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. We affirm, but for different reasons.
A review of the information on the New York State Unified Court System E-Courts public website, of which we take judicial notice (see Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13, 20), reveals that, when the original proceeding appeared on the trial calendar in 2001, the court marked the case "settled before trial." Accordingly, the original proceeding was not marked "off" or stricken from the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see Long-Waithe v Kings Apparel Inc., 10 AD3d 413, 414; Baez v Kayantas, 298 AD2d 416; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126). For the reasons set forth in our determination on a companion appeal (see Matter of Transtechnology Corp. v AssessorAD3d [decided herewith]), the Supreme Court correctly recognized that it misapprehended the law relevant to the instant dispute and, thus, correctly granted that branch of the petitioner's motion which was for leave to reargue and thereupon granted those branches of Cento's motion which were to restore the original proceeding to the trial calendar and, in effect, to restore the subsequent related proceedings to active status.
And one older 3404 decision that I never got around to posting.
Kahgan v Alwi, 67 AD3d 742 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
The plaintiff filed her note of issue on January 6, 2005. On November 9, 2005 the case was marked off the trial calendar, at the plaintiff's request, after the defendants moved for summary judgment. Prior to the expiration of one year after the action was marked off the calendar, the plaintiff moved, in or about July 2006, to restore the action to the trial calendar. However, although the notice of motion indicated a return date, this motion never appeared on any court calendar. In January 2008 the plaintiff again moved for an order "restoring this matter to active status for determination on the merits." This motion was denied by the Supreme Court, and we reverse.
CPLR 3404 creates a rebuttable presumption that an action marked off the trial calendar and not restored within one year has been abandoned (see Sanchez v Denkberg, 284 AD2d 446 [2001]). The court retains discretion to grant a motion to restore a case to the trial calendar after the one-year period has expired (see Ford v Empire Med. Group, 123 AD2d 820 [1986]). Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff initially moved to restore the matter to the trial calendar within one year after it was marked off and that, for reasons which are not discernible on the record, the court never addressed that motion. Moreover, the record reveals that there was continued activity on the case just before the second motion to restore was made. Although the plaintiff could have more promptly moved a second time to restore the case to the calendar, under all of the circumstances, we conclude that there was a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution and a lack of intent to abandon the action (see Drucker v Progressive Enters., 172 AD2d 481 [1991]). Furthermore, the plaintiff has demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a lack of prejudice to the defendant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in refusing to restore the matter to the trial calendar (see Sheridan v Mid-Island Hosp., Inc., 9 AD3d 490 [2004]; Acciarito v Homedco, Inc., 237 AD2d 236 [1997]).
March 28, 2010 at 07:32 PM | Permalink
David M. Gottlieb, Esq.
SR on CPLR 3211(e) + alleged lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect
paul lounsbury on Out of State Affidavit: CPLR § 2309(c); RPL § 299-a (1) Substance Rules the Day
TomH on CPLR R. 3212 and such
David M. Gottlieb on bumped: So you want to go solo
Carolyn Elefant on bumped: So you want to go solo
Sun on The no-fault
David M. Gottlieb on The no-fault
slick on The no-fault
Damin J. Toell, Esq. on 22 NYCRR 202.7(a)(2)
David M. Gottlieb on Anyone in Ohio looking to hire?
CPLR § 1601
(App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010)
(App. Term., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists.)
22 NYCRR 130-1.1
22 NYCRR 202.21
22 NYCRR 202.27
22 NYCRR 202.42
22 NYCRR 202.48
22 NYCRR 202.7
22 NYCRR 208.17
22 NYCRR 208.4
22 NYCRR 9.1
22 NYCRR § 104.1
22 NYCRR § 1200.0
22 NYCRR § 202.7
22 NYCRR § 208.14
3212(f)
App. Div., 1st
App. Div., 2nd
App. Div., 3rd
App. Div., 4th
App. Term, 1st
App. Term, 2nd
CCA § 1702
CPLR R. 4401
CPLR 2003
CPLR 211
CPLR 3018
CPLR 5203
CPLR R. 1010
CPLR R. 2101
CPLR R. 2102
CPLR R. 2103
CPLR R. 2104
CPLR R. 2106
CPLR R. 2214
CPLR R. 2215
CPLR R. 2219
CPLR R. 2221
CPLR R. 3014
CPLR R. 3016
CPLR R. 3025
CPLR R. 3043
CPLR R. 305
CPLR R. 306
CPLR R. 3108
CPLR R. 3113
CPLR R. 3116
CPLR R. 3117
CPLR R. 3118
CPLR R. 3120
CPLR R. 3124
CPLR R. 320
CPLR R. 3211
CPLR R. 3212
CPLR R. 3214
CPLR R. 3215
CPLR R. 3216
CPLR R. 3217
CPLR R. 327
CPLR R. 3404
CPLR R. 411
CPLR R. 4212
CPLR R. 4311
CPLR R. 4403
CPLR R. 4404
CPLR R. 4405
CPLR R. 4511
CPLR R. 4518
CPLR R. 4536
CPLR R. 5015
CPLR R. 511
CPLR R. 5224
CPLR R. 5513
CPLR R. 5515
CPLR R. 5526
CPLR R. 6312
CPLR § 1001
CPLR § 1003
CPLR § 1004
CPLR § 1006
CPLR § 101
CPLR § 1012
CPLR § 1013
CPLR § 1015
CPLR § 1018
CPLR § 1021
CPLR § 1024
CPLR § 104
CPLR § 105
CPLR § 1209
CPLR § 1401
CPLR § 1402
CPLR § 2001
CPLR § 2002
CPLR § 2004
CPLR § 2005
CPLR § 202
CPLR § 203
CPLR § 205
CPLR § 207
CPLR § 208
CPLR § 2105
CPLR § 212
CPLR § 213
CPLR § 214-a
CPLR § 215
CPLR § 217
CPLR § 2201
CPLR § 2211
CPLR § 2303
CPLR § 2303–a
CPLR § 2309
CPLR § 231
CPLR § 301
CPLR § 3012
CPLR § 3013
CPLR § 3017
CPLR § 3018
CPLR § 302
CPLR § 3020
CPLR § 3026
CPLR § 304
CPLR § 306-b
CPLR § 308
CPLR § 310
CPLR § 3101
CPLR § 3102
CPLR § 3103
CPLR § 3104
CPLR § 311
CPLR § 3119
CPLR § 312-a
CPLR § 3121
CPLR § 3123
CPLR § 3126
CPLR § 313
CPLR § 3130
CPLR § 317
CPLR § 321
CPLR § 3213
CPLR § 3215
CPLR § 3218
CPLR § 325
CPLR § 4001
CPLR § 4017
CPLR § 403
CPLR § 408
CPLR § 4102
CPLR § 4106
CPLR § 4110
CPLR § 4110-b
CPLR § 4113
CPLR § 4201
CPLR § 4213
CPLR § 4301
CPLR § 4317
CPLR § 4503
CPLR § 4504
CPLR § 4513
CPLR § 4519
CPLR § 4545
CPLR § 4547
CPLR § 5001
CPLR § 5002
CPLR § 5003
CPLR § 5003-a
CPLR § 5004
CPLR § 501
CPLR § 5014
CPLR § 5018
CPLR § 5019
CPLR § 503
CPLR § 504
CPLR § 505
CPLR § 510
CPLR § 5205
CPLR § 5210
CPLR § 5221
CPLR § 5222
CPLR § 5225
CPLR § 5241
CPLR § 5242
CPLR § 5251
CPLR § 5304
CPLR § 5305
CPLR § 5402
CPLR § 5501
CPLR § 5511
CPLR § 5512
CPLR § 5520
CPLR § 5524
CPLR § 5601
CPLR § 5701
CPLR § 602
CPLR § 6201
CPLR § 6301
CPLR § 6501
CPLR § 6512
CPLR § 6514
CPLR § 7507
CPLR § 7801
CPLR § 8004
CPLR § 8012
CPLR § 8404
CPLR § 901
CPLR § 902
Ct. App.
General Motion Procedure
In Pari Delicto
Judiciary Law § 478
Misc. Procedural
Missing document
Missing witness
More than one SJ
No-Fault [EUO]
No-Fault [FS]
No-Fault [general]
No-Fault [MVAIC]
No-Fault [Peer]
No-Fault [Supreme]
No-Fault {Verification]
Preclusion order doesn't preclude SJ
RPL § 299-a
Summation and Opening