Farrell Forwarding Co., Inc. v. Alison Transp., Inc.

119 A.D.3d 891, 989 N.Y.S.2d 895
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 30, 2014
Docket2012-10269
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 891 (Farrell Forwarding Co., Inc. v. Alison Transp., 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
Farrell Forwarding Co., Inc. v. Alison Transp., Inc., 119 A.D.3d 891, 989 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered June 27, 2012, which, upon an order of the same court entered February 29, 2012, granting the defendant’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment and to dismiss the complaint for failure to appear pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, is in favor of the defendant and against it dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and substituting therefor a provision dismissing the complaint without prejudice; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*892 After the plaintiff failed to appear at a court-ordered conference, the defendant moved for leave to enter a default judgment and to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (b). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to establish either a reasonable excuse for the default or a potentially meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the motion for leave to enter a default judgment and to dismiss the complaint was properly granted (see Aydiner v Grosfillex, Inc., 111 AD3d 589 [2013]).

However, the judgment should have dismissed the complaint without prejudice, since dismissal of an action for a default pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 does not constitute a determination on the merits (see Franchise Acquisitions Group Corp. v Jefferson Val. Mall Ltd. Partnership, 73 AD3d 1123 [2010]; Kalisch v Maple Trade Fin. Corp., 35 AD3d 291 [2006]).

Dickerson, J.E, Leventhal, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hudson City Sav. Bank v. Augustin
2021 NY Slip Op 00841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Geffner v. Mercy Med. Ctr.
2018 NY Slip Op 8280 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Wright
130 A.D.3d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Guccione
127 A.D.3d 1136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 A.D.3d 891, 989 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrell-forwarding-co-inc-v-alison-transp-inc-nyappdiv-2014.