Law of the case
22 NYCRR § 208.14 Calendar default; restoration; dismissal
(c) Actions stricken from the calendar may be restored to the calendar only upon stipulation of all parties so ordered by the court or by motion on notice to all other parties, made within one year after the action is stricken. A motion must be supported by affidavit by a person having firsthand knowledge, satisfactorily explaining the reasons for the action having been stricken and showing that it is presently ready for trial.
CPLR R. 3404 Dismissal of abandoned cases
Bowman v Beach Concerts, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 07747 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)
As plaintiff concedes, the showing of merit required on a motion to restore is less than that required to defend a motion for summary judgment (see Kaufman v Bauer, 36 AD3d 481, 482 ). Indeed, this Court has previously held that a finding of merit sufficient to vacate a plaintiff's default does not preclude a subsequent granting of summary judgment to defendants (see Gamiel v Curtis & Reiss-Curtis, P.C., 60 AD3d 473, 474 , lv dismissed __ NY3d __ , 2009 NY LEXIS 3484; see also Embraer Fin. Ltd. v Servicios Aereos Profesionales, S.A., 42 AD3d 380, 381 ). Thus, plaintiff's argument that this Court's prior order was "law of the case" precluding summary judgment in respondents' favor, or an "implicit recognition" of the merits of his claims, is without merit.
Deltejo v St. Nicholas Venture Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 07689 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)\
Because the dismissal order, under CPLR 3404, did not result from an order on notice, it is not appealable as of right. However, we deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal, and exercise our discretion (CPLR 5701[c]) to grant leave and consider the merits of this appeal (see Jun-Yong Kim v A & J Produce Corp., 15 AD3d 251 ; Mulligan v New York Cornell Med. Ctr., 304 AD2d 492 ).
The matter is restored to the trial calendar without prejudice to defendants' seeking preclusion relief. It is apparent that another Justice on a prior motion for restoration had intended that the matter go to trial, and that if plaintiff could not produce certain medical evidence, defendants' remedy would be issue preclusion, not an order striking the complaint. Defendants argue that the prior order was wrongly decided and the motion to restore should have been denied outright. However, defendants did not appeal from that order, and in any event, their argument is without merit (see Burgos v 2915 Surf Ave. Food Mart, 298 AD2d 282 ).