Majority
p. 535Ernest Varricchio, Appellant, v Dennis Sterling et al., Respondents. [926 NYS2d 320]
On July 16, 2008, this pre-note of issue action was marked
p. 536
“other final disp.” after the parties failed to appear for a compliance conference. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action (see Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137 , 1138 [2010]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190 , 199 [2001]). Furthermore, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d at 1138 ; Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 62 AD3d 741 , 742 [2009]; Burdick v Marcus, 17 AD3d 388 [2005]; 123X Corp. v McKenzie, 7 AD3d 769 [2004]). Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to restore the action to active status should have been granted. Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Service, Inc. 282 AD2d 190 at 199 p. 536
- Casavecchia v. Mizrahi 62 AD3d 741 at 742 p. 536
- Burdick v. Marcus 17 AD3d 388 p. 536
- 123X Corp. v. McKenzie 7 AD3d 769 p. 536