Padded Wagon, Inc. v. Associates Commercial Corp.

92 A.D.3d 430, 937 N.Y.2d 592
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[431] It is black letter law that “[a] party seeking to have a case restored to the trial calendar must demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay, a lack of intent to abandon the action and the absence of prejudice to the opposing party” (Kamara v Ambert, 89 AD3d 612, 613 [2011]). Furthermore “[a]ll four conditions must be satisfied” (Campbell v Crystal Realty Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 276 AD2d 328, 328 [2000]).

Here, plaintiff failed to offer any excuse for passively waiting for a trial date and then first seeking relief more than three years after the dismissal for failure to appear (see Spivey v Bouteureira, 259 AD2d 425 [1999]). To the extent that plaintiffs excuse for the delay may be attributed to law office failure, it is unsubstantiated (see Okun v Tanners, 11 NY3d 762 [2008]). Plaintiffs attempt to demonstrate merit for the first time in its attorney’s reply, unaccompanied by an affidavit from a person claiming knowledge of the facts, was insufficient (see Rozina v Casa 74th Dev. LLC, 89 AD3d 508 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

Padded Wagon, Inc. v. Associates Commercial Corp., 92 A.D.3d 430, 937 N.Y.2d 592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 430 (Padded Wagon, Inc. v. Associates Commercial Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. City of New York
106 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)