Accident Case Marked "Inactive" But Never Placed On Trial Calendar Restored To "Active" Status

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

Case: Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Services

Date: Aug. 22, 2012

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Queens; Queens accident attorney)

**************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

DEFENDANT WHOSE ANSWER WAS STRICKEN CAN'T SEEK DISCOVERY BY VACATING PLAINTIFF'S NOTE OF ISSUE

ACCIDENT VICTIM NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO SECOND DEFENSE ORTHOPEDIC EXAMINATION, WHERE DOCTOR GAVE HER A COMPLETE FIRST EXAMINATION

**************************************************

Facts: Look like a judge got tough and unforgiving against a party that missed a conference in this accident case. Injured plaintiff was in a car accident in October, 2002. He started a lawsuit.

Plaintiff's attorney missed an in-court conference in 2007 and the Court changed the case status to "inactive." This case was never on the Court's trial calendar as plaintiff had not filed a note of issue.

Here's the wrinkle. The appeals court mentioned that in 2010 the lower court denied a motion by the accident victim's lawyer to restore the case to "active" status. This would permit the plaintiff to file a note of issue to place the case on the trial calendar so it could proceed to trial. The plaintiff's lawyer re-made (renewed) this motion in 2011 and was denied again.

Here's my unanswered question. Why'd plaintiff"s accident lawyer wait from 2007 to 2010 to try to have the case revived? This is the unspoken problem with the way the attorney handled his client's case. As a result, the lawyer had to sweat out a possible malpractice claim for the lengthy delay, and complete an appeal.

Holding: The lower court should have let the accident victim renew his request to "revive" his case, because it was never actually dismissed.

Categories