Mumford v. 854 Gerard Ave. Corp.
This text of 70 Misc. 3d 131(A) (Mumford v. 854 Gerard Ave. Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Mumford v 854 Gerard Ave. Corp. (2020 NY Slip Op 51543(U)) [*1]
| Mumford v 854 Gerard Ave. Corp. |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 51543(U) [70 Misc 3d 131(A)] |
| Decided on December 24, 2020 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on December 24, 2020
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Cooper, J.P., Higgitt, McShan, JJ.
570198/20
against
854 Gerard Ave. Corp., individually and d/b/a News Room Jazz Club/Sports Bar, Theodore Carelock, Triangle Realty-Southeast, Charlotte Greene, Barbara R. Schwartz, and James Robinson, Defendants-Respondents.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Marissa Soto, J.), entered November 8, 2019, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action.
Per Curiam.
Order (Marissa Soto, J.), entered November 8, 2019, affirmed, with $10 costs.
This action was dismissed as a result of plaintiff's nonappearance at a scheduled court conference (see 22 NYCRR § 208.14[b][2]), and plaintiff's prior motion to vacate that dismissal was denied because of her nonappearance on the scheduled motion return date. In this posture, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of plaintiff's most recent vacatur motion. Plaintiff's counsel's unsubstantiated assertion that a clerical error caused the case to be dismissed for nonappearance at a scheduled court conference was inadequate, particularly given the repeated and extended delays in prosecuting the action over the course of more than sixteen years (see Ward v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 82 AD3d 471 [2011]; Cato v City of New York, 70 AD3d 471, 472 [2010]). Even assuming that plaintiff showed a reasonable excuse for her multiple defaults, she failed to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action (see Fink v Antell, 19 AD3d 215 [2005]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 24, 2020
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
70 Misc. 3d 131(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 51543(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mumford-v-854-gerard-ave-corp-nyappterm-2020.