Grigolo v Pulwin

Annotate this Case
[*1] Grigolo v Pulwin 2015 NY Slip Op 50676(U) Decided on May 1, 2015 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 1, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ALIOTTA, J.P., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2013-1174 Q C

Patrizia Grigolo and REGIS GOODWIN, Appellants,

against

Zdzislaw Pulwin, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered February 19, 2013. The order denied plaintiffs' motion to restore the matter to the trial calendar.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that plaintiffs' motion to restore the matter to the trial calendar is denied as unnecessary; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

By order dated May 8, 2008, the Civil Court (Thomas D. Raffaele, J.) vacated a judgment entered against defendant after inquest, restored the matter to the calendar, and stated that, upon the filing of a new notice of trial, the clerk was directed to place the matter on the trial calendar. On April 18, 2012, plaintiffs sought to file a notice of trial, which was rejected by the clerk with an instruction to obtain an order to restore. Plaintiffs then moved to restore the action to the calendar. By order entered February 19, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiffs' motion on the ground that they did not assert a reasonable excuse for their delay and a meritorious defense. Plaintiffs appeal.

The May 8, 2008 order specifically restored the case to the "active calendar," and there is nothing in the record stating that it had been stricken from the calendar after that date. Thus, plaintiffs' motion to restore should have been denied as unnecessary.

We modify the order accordingly.

Aliotta, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: May 01, 2015

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.