Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cippitelli v. Town of Niskayuna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 10, 1998Published

1DissentCardona, P. J.

I respectfully dissent. Initially, I would deem plaintiffs’ pro se affidavits submitted in opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss both an application to restore the case to the trial calendar and to vacate the CPLR 3404 dismissal (see, Merrill v Robinson, 99 AD2d 578; see also, Malpass v Mavis Tire Supply Corp., 143 AD2d 890). In my opinion, the instant appeal should be treated as one from the denial of the motion to vacate the dismissal. It is settled law that “[t]o prevail on a CPLR 3404 motion, the movant must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Merrill v. RobinsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  2. Krantz v. ScholtzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  3. Malpass v. Mavis Tire Supply Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
  4. Langan v. BellingerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  5. Weiss v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API