Curry v. Northwell Health Imaging at Syosset
This text of Curry v. Northwell Health Imaging at Syosset (Curry v. Northwell Health Imaging at Syosset) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Curry v Northwell Health Imaging at Syosset
2026 NY Slip Op 04174
July 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Edward Curry, appellant,
v
Northwell Health Imaging at Syosset, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 1, 2026
2024-12925, (Index No. 617116/22)
Mark C. Dillon, J.P.
Angela G. Iannacci
Deborah A. Dowling
James P. McCormack, JJ.
Valdivia Law Office PLLC, Oyster Bay, NY (Brian Valdivia of counsel), for appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lisa A. Cairo, J.), dated September 24, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the plaintiff's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate his default in appearing at a compliance conference on May 23, 2024, and to restore the action to the court's calendar.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging, among other things, negligence. The plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with orders to appear for his deposition, including a failure to appear on May 21, 2024. On May 23, 2024, the plaintiff and his attorney failed to appear at a compliance conference and the Supreme Court directed dismissal of the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. In June 2024, the plaintiff moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate his default in appearing at the compliance conference and to restore the action to the court's calendar. In support of his motion, the plaintiff argued that he had both a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing at the compliance conference and a potentially meritorious cause of action. By order dated September 24, 2024, the court, inter alia, denied the plaintiff's motion, determining that he failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his default. The plaintiff appeals.
"'In order to vacate a default in appearing at a scheduled court conference, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious cause of action'" (Gutierrez v Plonski, 219 AD3d 807, 808, quoting Lee v Latendorf, 162 AD3d 1002, 1003). "'Whether an excuse is reasonable is a determination within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court'" (id., quoting Polsky v Simon, 145 AD3d 693, 693). "In its exercise of discretion, the court may consider factors such as 'the extent of the delay, prejudice or lack of prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits'" (id., quoting Crevecoeur v Mattam, 172 AD3d 813, 814). "A court may, in the exercise of its discretion, accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse. However, the party seeking to vacate the default must provide detailed allegations of fact that explain the failure, and a pattern of willful default and neglect should not be excused" (Davis v 574 Lafa Corp., 206 AD3d 613, 615 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]). "[A] conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated [*2]claim of law office failure [does] not amount to a reasonable excuse" (Matter of Castellotti v Castellotti, 165 AD3d 926, 928).
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the plaintiff did not offer a reasonable excuse for his default. The excuse proffered, that the plaintiff and his attorney failed to appear at the compliance conference due to the plaintiff's attorney's family emergency, was unreasonable under the circumstances, as it was not a detailed and credible explanation for the claimed law office failure. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to set forth any excuse, let alone a reasonable one, for his failure to appear at his scheduled depositions.
Since the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his default, the issue of whether the plaintiff had a potentially meritorious cause of action need not be addressed (see Gutierrez v Plonski, 219 AD3d at 809).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is not properly before this Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate his default in appearing at the compliance conference and to restore the action to the court's calendar.
DILLON, J.P., IANNACCI, DOWLING and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Curry v. Northwell Health Imaging at Syosset, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-northwell-health-imaging-at-syosset-nyappdiv-2026.