Legal Opinion
Maharaj v. LaRoche
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 12, 2010PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff moved to restore this action to the calendar after it was, in effect, dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to file a timely note of issue pursuant to a compliance order dated April 15, 2008. Notably, the compliance order specifically advised that it did not constitute a CPLR 3216 notice. Thus, the order could not be deemed a 90-day demand to file a note of issue, which is a precondition to dismissal under CPLR 3216 (see CPLR 3216 [b] [3]; Ratway v Donnenfeld, 43 AD3d 465 [2007]; Heifetz v Godoy, 38 AD3d 605 [2007]; Murray v Smith Corp., 296 AD2d 445, 447 [2002]).…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Murray v. T.W. Smith Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Heifetz v. GodoyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Ratway v. DonnenfeldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
3Cited by5 opinions
- Griffith v. WrayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Alli v. BaijnathAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Neary v. Tower InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Alli v. BaijnathAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Griffith v. WrayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013