Meredith v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meredith v. City of New York

61 A.D.3d 522, 877 N.Y.S.2d 53

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

DecidedApril 16, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 522 (Meredith v. City of New York) 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

Meredith v. City of New York, 61 A.D.3d 522, 877 N.Y.S.2d 53 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered January 24, 2007, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the order of dismissal and restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject plaintiffs challenge to the jurisdiction of the judicial hearing officer. While the record does not contain an order of reference, plaintiffs actively participated in the proceedings before him without objection (see Matter of Heather J., 244 AD2d 762, 763 [1997]).

The hearing officer’s refusal to adjourn, after a jury had been empaneled, to allow plaintiffs to seek an amendment of the complaint or bill of particulars cannot serve as a basis for plaintiffs’ refusal to proceed (see Vink v Ranawat, 48 AD3d 212 [2008]). Plaintiffs cannot avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of their retained counsel (see Drake v Bates, 49 AD3d 1098 [2008]), whose intentional default, based on the misrepresentation that his firm had been discharged and he could not proceed, is ipso facto inexcusable (see Wilf v Halpern, 234 AD2d 154 [1996]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered January 24, 2007, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the order of dismissal and restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject plaintiffs challenge to the jurisdiction of the judicial hearing officer. While the record does not contain an order of reference, plaintiffs actively participated in the proceedings before him without objection (see Matter of Heather J., 244 AD2d 762, 763 [1997]).

The hearing officer’s refusal to adjourn, after a jury had been empaneled, to allow plaintiffs to seek an amendment of the complaint or bill of particulars cannot serve as a basis for plaintiffs’ refusal to proceed (see Vink v Ranawat, 48 AD3d 212 [2008]). Plaintiffs cannot avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of their retained counsel (see Drake v Bates, 49 AD3d 1098 [2008]), whose intentional default, based on the misrepresentation that his firm had been discharged and he could not proceed, is ipso facto inexcusable (see Wilf v Halpern, 234 AD2d 154 [1996]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 522, 877 N.Y.S.2d 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meredith-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack