Acosta v. Riverdale Development, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acosta v. Riverdale Development, LLC

72 A.D.3d 525, 898 N.Y.S.2d 451

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 20, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 525 (Acosta v. Riverdale Development, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acosta v. Riverdale Development, LLC, 72 A.D.3d 525, 898 N.Y.S.2d 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered May 15, 2009, which granted plaintiffs motion to vacate a default judgment and restore this matter to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A compliance conference was held during the pendency of a stay of the action. Defendants appeared, but plaintiff, then pro se, did not. The conference was adjourned, and plaintiff was never notified of the adjournment date. Initially, we note that the action was improperly dismissed under Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.27. Although plaintiff did not appear for the adjourned conference, she was wholly ignorant of the conference date through no fault of her own. Thus, section 202.27 (b) is inapplicable.

We need not consider the merits of plaintiffs claim because the order entering the default under section 202.27 was improperly entered. Finally, vacatur here was consistent with the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits (Telep v Republic El. Corp., 267 AD2d 57, 58-59 [1999]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered May 15, 2009, which granted plaintiffs motion to vacate a default judgment and restore this matter to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A compliance conference was held during the pendency of a stay of the action. Defendants appeared, but plaintiff, then pro se, did not. The conference was adjourned, and plaintiff was never notified of the adjournment date. Initially, we note that the action was improperly dismissed under Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.27. Although plaintiff did not appear for the adjourned conference, she was wholly ignorant of the conference date through no fault of her own. Thus, section 202.27 (b) is inapplicable.

We need not consider the merits of plaintiffs claim because the order entering the default under section 202.27 was improperly entered. Finally, vacatur here was consistent with the strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits (Telep v Republic El. Corp., 267 AD2d 57, 58-59 [1999]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 525, 898 N.Y.S.2d 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-riverdale-development-llc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack