Key Takeaway
Court ruling highlights how NYC Civil Court's Uniform Rules require stricter standards than CPLR 3404 when restoring stricken cases to calendar.
New York’s legal landscape includes different procedural rules depending on the court where a case is filed. While the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs most state court proceedings, New York City Civil Court operates under additional Uniform Rules that can impose stricter requirements. This distinction becomes particularly important when cases are stricken from the calendar and parties seek to restore them for trial.
The case of Gaetane Physical Therapy, P.C. v Kemper Auto & Home Ins. Co. illustrates how these different procedural standards can significantly impact litigation outcomes. When a case is stricken from the calendar in NYC Civil Court, the burden on the moving party to restore it differs markedly from what might be required under standard CPLR provisions.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Gaetane Physical Therapy, P.C. v Kemper Auto & Home Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50255(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Pursuant to Uniform Rules for New York City Civil Court (22 NYCRR) § 208.14 (c), when an action has been stricken from the calendar and a party moves within a year to restore the action to the calendar, that motion “must be supported by affidavit by a person having firsthand knowledge, satisfactorily explaining the reasons for the action having been stricken and showing that it is presently ready for trial.” Here, plaintiff’s counsel’s bare assertion, that the action had been stricken because plaintiff’s witness had been “unavailable,” was conclusory, since it failed to provide any indication as to who the witness was or any reason as to why the witness was unavailable. As plaintiff failed to proffer a satisfactory explanation for the action having been stricken from the calendar (see Uniform Rules for NY City Civ Ct § 208.14 ), plaintiff’s motion was properly denied.”
Under CPLR 3404, this would have been a no brainer. Yet, under the uniform rule, a showing of reasonable excuse is necessary. And that, was not done in this case.
Key Takeaway
This case demonstrates the critical importance of understanding which procedural rules apply to your specific court. NYC Civil Court’s Uniform Rules require detailed, factual explanations when seeking to restore stricken cases—a much higher bar than CPLR 3404’s more lenient standards. Practitioners must provide specific details about witnesses and unavailability reasons, not mere conclusory statements.
