| Expedite Video Conferencing Servs., Inc. v Botello |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08781 [67 AD3d 961] |
| November 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Expedite Video Conferencing Services, Inc.,Respondent, v Steven M. Botello, Appellant. |
—[*1] Regina A. Matejka, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), entered June 25, 2008, which granted theplaintiff's motion for leave to voluntarily discontinue the action, without prejudice, pursuant toCPLR 3217 (b).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The determination of a motion for leave to voluntarily discontinue an action, withoutprejudice, pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b), rests within the sound discretion of the court (seeTucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378, 383 [1982]). In the absence of special circumstances, suchas prejudice to a substantial right of the defendant, or other improper consequences, a motion fora voluntary discontinuance should be granted (see Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378[1982]; Eugenia VI Venture Holdings,Ltd. v MapleWood Equity Partners, L.P., 38 AD3d 264 [2007]; Parraguirre v 27th St. Holding, LLC,37 AD3d 793 [2007]; Mathias v Daily News, 301 AD2d 503 [2003];Urbonowicz v Yarinsky, 290 AD2d 922, 923 [2002]; County of Westchester vWelton Becket Assoc., 102 AD2d 34 [1984]).
Here, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion tovoluntarily discontinue the action, as there was no showing of special circumstances (seeCitibank v Nagrotsky, 239 AD2d 456 [1997]). Mastro, J.P., Belen, Hall and Austin, JJ.,concur.