Settled without a stipulation. How does it get back on the calendar?

Santana v Vargas, 2010 NY Slip Op 07160 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the action was not marked "off" or stricken from the trial calendar within the meaning of CPLR 3404 (see Freehill v ITT Sheraton Corp., 74 AD3d 876; Long-Waithe v Kings Apparel Inc., 10 AD3d 413, 414). Rather, the Supreme Court's order dated June 1, 2007, indicates that the case was marked "settled" after the parties reached a tentative agreement. Accordingly, CPLR 3404 is inapplicable (see Long-Waithe v Kings Apparel Inc., 10 AD3d at 413; Baez v Kayantas, 298 AD2d 416), and the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse, meritorious cause of action, lack of intent to abandon, and lack of prejudice in order to have the matter restored to the active trial calendar (see Long-Waithe v Kings Apparel Inc., 10 AD3d at 41

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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