FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History
Abstract
In this nonprimary residence holdover proceeding, the landlord moved to restore the case for immediate trial five years after it was marked off calendar for discovery. The court denied the motion, finding the landlord failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay, a lack of prejudice to the tenant, or to address the merits of the underlying nonprimary residence claim. Citing Appellate Term precedent, the court emphasized that a motion to restore, filed more than one year after a case is stricken, requires proof of merit, lack of prejudice, lack of intent to abandon, and a reasonable excuse for delay. The landlord\u27s allegation of unpaid use and occupancy was deemed an insufficient basis to warrant restoration
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.