Legal Opinion
Soo Ji Kim v. Seney
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 31, 2012PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*942On January 25, 2010, the Supreme Court struck the action from the trial calendar after the plaintiff appeared for the calendar call but was not ready for trial. There was no order vacating the note of issue pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (e). Accordingly, contrary to the defendant’s contention, in moving to restore the action to the trial calendar, the plaintiff was not required to submit a certificate of readiness or show that the case was ready for trial (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [f]; Ross v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 54 AD3d 370, 371 [2008]). Furthermore, since the plaintiff moved to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Basetti v. NourAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Mitskevitch v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Burdick v. MarcusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Casavecchia v. MizrahiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Kohn v. Citigroup, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Saint Mary Byzantine Catholic Church v. KalinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Plotkin v. J.J. Nazzaro Associates, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Plotkin v. J.J. Nazzaro Associates, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Saint Mary Byzantine Catholic Church v. KalinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013