Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co.

[*1] Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. 2010 NY Slip Op 50120(U) [26 Misc 3d 133(A)] Decided on February 2, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 2, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570719/09.

Fair Price Medical Supply, Inc. a/a/o Fritz Francois, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

GEICO Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant. Fair Price Medical Supply, Inc. a/a/o Robert Pawl, Plaintiff-Respondent, GEICO Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant Fair Price Medical Supply, Inc. a/a/o Celiene Louis, Plaintiff-Respondent, GEICO Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

In consolidated actions, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), dated February 11, 2009, which granted plaintiff's motion to restore the actions to the calendar.

Per Curiam.

Order (Ben R. Barbato, J.), dated February 11, 2009, reversed, without costs, and motion denied.

Plaintiff commenced these actions to recover first-party no-fault benefits in March 2003. Plaintiff's assignors were injured in the same August 2001 motor vehicle accident, which [*2]defendant asserts was staged, and the actions were therefore consolidated for trial in December 2004. On January 6, 2006, the actions (each of which sought approximately $1300) were marked off the trial calendar, and plaintiff moved to restore them in January 2009.

Because plaintiff moved to restore the actions more than one year after they were stricken from the calendar, plaintiff was required to demonstrate (a) the merits of its claims; (b) a lack of prejudice to defendant; (c) a lack of intent to abandon the action; and (d) a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to restore the actions (Kaufman v Bauer, 36 AD3d 481, 482 [2007]). All four requirements must be met before an abandoned action can be restored (id.).

Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff satisfied the remaining criteria, it failed to offer a reasonable excuse for its three-year delay in seeking to restore the actions (see generally Okun v Tanners, 11 NY3d 762 [2008]). Plaintiff offered no excuse for its prior counsel's failure to move to restore the actions during the 19-month period between the date the cases were marked off and the date prior counsel was relieved, and failed to adequately explain its substituted counsel's 17-month delay in moving to restore. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion should have been denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: February 02, 2010