CPLR R. 3217 Late discontinuance to avoid decision on pending motion

CPLR R. 3217 Voluntary discontinuance

(a) Without an order

McMahan v McMahan, 2009 NY Slip Op 04165 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

As against appellant, the action should not have been discontinued
without prejudice where plaintiff's notice of discontinuance was
untimely under CPLR 3217(a)
(see Citidress II Corp. v Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, 59 AD3d 210,
211 [2009]), and was apparently served in order to avoid an adverse
decision on a pending motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice
and to enable plaintiff to raise the claims she makes herein in another
pending action (see NBN Broadcasting v Sheridan Broadcasting Networks,
240 AD2d 319 [1997]). The foregoing renders academic appellant's claim
that the motion court should have granted its motion to dismiss the
complaint on default (see 176-60 Union Turnpike v Howard Beach Fitness Ctr., 271 AD2d 327, 328 [2000]).

The bold is mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: