Bed-Stuy Case Named Decision of Interest

A recent Bedford-Stuyvesant Community Legal Services ("Bed-Stuy," a program of Legal Services NYC) win was reported in the October 27th issue of the New York Law Journal as a Decision of Interest.  The decision underscores the need for
strict compliance with relevant statutory provisions when seeking to restore a
case to the calendar that has been “marked off,” even where restoration is
sought pursuant to stipulation.  The case was handled by Bed-Stuy Staff Attorney Elizabeth Bohnett.

From the NYLJ: 

Norgate Development Associates v. Bogan

KINGS COUNTY Civil Practice

October 27, 2009

Judge Lau

PETITIONER landlord commenced a summary proceeding seeking outstanding
rent. It sought and obtained a judgment of possession for respondent
tenant's default. Respondent moved to be restored to possession, and
the parties entered into a stipulation vacating the judgment and
warrant, and restoring respondent to possession. The matter was marked
off the court calendar. Petitioner now moved for restoration of the
proceeding to the calendar, and respondent cross-moved for denial.
Respondent asserted that the lack of an affidavit of merit from a party
with personal knowledge of petitioner's claims required denial of the
motion. The court agreed, stating that a party seeking to restore to
the calendar a case that was marked off, must file a motion supported
by an affidavit by someone having firsthand knowledge and
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for the action having been
stricken and showing it was now ready for trial. It found petitioner's
motion—which did not include either an affidavit premised on personal
knowledge or an assertion of trial readiness—insufficient to support
restoration, granting respondent's cross-motion.

Read the Full-Text Opinion