Costigan v Bleifeld
2005 NYSlipOp 06578
September 6, 2005
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 16, 2005


Patrick Costigan et al., Appellants,
v
Charles J. Bleifeld, Respondent.

[*1]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated November 25, 2002, which denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to make the motion to restore until more than one year after the action had been marked off the trial calendar. Also, in light of the lapse of some 13 years between the date of the alleged malpractice and the time the motion under review was made, the Supreme Court could properly infer that the defendant had been prejudiced (see Collins v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 266 AD2d 178 [1999]; Carter v City of New York, 231 AD2d 485 [1996]). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to restore (see Cobos v Phieffer, 8 AD3d 424 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.