Carela v. Pelham Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carela v. Pelham Realty, Inc.

57 A.D.3d 389, 868 N.Y.2d 889

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 389 (Carela v. Pelham Realty, Inc.) 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

Carela v. Pelham Realty, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 389, 868 N.Y.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

This action was dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 upon plaintiffs failure to attend a pretrial conference. In seeking to vacate the dismissal, plaintiffs came forward with the requisite satisfactory excuse for their default in appearing and a showing of a meritorious claim (see Rugieri v Bannister, 7 NY3d 742 [2006]). Their attorneys did not willfully default when they failed to appear for a scheduled court conference and neglected to move to restore the case to the calendar (see Sanchez v Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353 [1998]). In the absence of service of the dismissal order with notice of entry, there was no time limit on the making of the motion to vacate the dismissal, and any alleged prejudice caused by postdismissal delay short of laches is not a consideration (see Acevedo v Navarro, 22 AD3d 391 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

This action was dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 upon plaintiffs failure to attend a pretrial conference. In seeking to vacate the dismissal, plaintiffs came forward with the requisite satisfactory excuse for their default in appearing and a showing of a meritorious claim (see Rugieri v Bannister, 7 NY3d 742 [2006]). Their attorneys did not willfully default when they failed to appear for a scheduled court conference and neglected to move to restore the case to the calendar (see Sanchez v Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353 [1998]). In the absence of service of the dismissal order with notice of entry, there was no time limit on the making of the motion to vacate the dismissal, and any alleged prejudice caused by postdismissal delay short of laches is not a consideration (see Acevedo v Navarro, 22 AD3d 391 [2005]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Catterson, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 389, 868 N.Y.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carela-v-pelham-realty-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack