Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review of this Motion Papers Numbered Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed 1, 2 Order to Show Cause Answering Affidavits 3, 4 Replying Affidavits 5 Exhibits Supplemental Affidavit DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, plaintiff’s motion to restore his case to the calendar and defendant’s motion for dismissal, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), are decided as follows: Plaintiff had commenced two actions, CV-000001-23/QU, against defendant, Manton House Corp., and CV-010482-23/QU against defendant The Ferrara Management Group Inc. AMO. Plaintiff had submitted complaints for harassment and other causes of action, which allegedly occurred in 2022. Defendant submitted lengthy handwritten complaints in which the events were alleged to have occurred at 139-05 85th Drive, Briarwood, New York. Upon the application of the defendant’s, this Court ordered the consolidation of these two complaints, by an order dated August 9, 2024. There was a previous action Victor Ramani v. President Manton House Corp., CV-010686-22. There had been a written stipulation, dated October 18, 2022, stating, “defendant to pay the sum of $25,000.00 to plaintiff, Victor Ramani, 139-05 85th Drive, Apt. 6D, Briarwood, New York 11435, by a check within 3 days of the date of this order. Upon receipt all parties agree to release each other from liability for any and all claims related to this action.” This Stipulation of Settlement was “so ordered” by the Hon. Cassandra A. Johnson, after having been allocated on the record. A release is binding upon the parties, Booth v. 3669 Delaware Inc., 92 N.Y.2d, 934 (1998), Scchetti-Virga v. Bonilla, 73 N.Y.S.3d 194 (2018). The defendant’s in the 2023 matter are different parties then the defendant in the 2022 matter. The motion to dismiss is denied. A case may be restored to the calendar after dismissal upon a reasonable excuse for the default, and a demonstration of the merits of the case, Kopilas v. Peterson, 206 A.D. 2d 460 (2nd Dept. 1994). Plaintiff states that he was emailed motion papers on Saturday, and he was late because he was preparing responding papers for the Monday, two days later. The Court finds this excuse acceptable, although plaintiff should have first appeared at the calendar call, plus the meritorious cause of action was demonstrated by the detailed complaints. The motion to restore is granted. The Clerk will distribute this order to the parties, and also schedule a date for a conference in Part 11, and notify the parties. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: December 5, 2024
