Polanco v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polanco v. City of New York

78 A.D.3d 617, 913 N.Y.S.2d 30

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 617 (Polanco 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

Polanco v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 617, 913 N.Y.S.2d 30 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 1, 2009, which, in this action for personal injuries that was dismissed upon the failure of plaintiffs counsel to appear for trial, denied plaintiffs motion seeking, inter alia, to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in denying the subject motion, as the record establishes that there was no reasonable excuse for the failure of plaintiffs attorney to appear for the jury trial on the subject action, which had already been repeatedly adjourned at the request of [618]*618plaintiffs counsel. Nothing contained in counsel’s affirmation of engagement addressed why the action in which she allegedly had to appear in Nassau County had priority over the matter herein (see Watson v New York City Tr. Auth., 38 AD3d 532 [2007]; 22 NYCRR 125.1; see also Benson Park Assoc., LLC v Herman, 73 AD3d 464 [2010]). Furthermore, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, since there is a lack of evidence that defendant had prior written notice of the alleged defect in the crosswalk that caused her fall (see Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241 [1995]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered September 1, 2009, which, in this action for personal injuries that was dismissed upon the failure of plaintiffs counsel to appear for trial, denied plaintiffs motion seeking, inter alia, to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in denying the subject motion, as the record establishes that there was no reasonable excuse for the failure of plaintiffs attorney to appear for the jury trial on the subject action, which had already been repeatedly adjourned at the request of [618]*618plaintiffs counsel. Nothing contained in counsel’s affirmation of engagement addressed why the action in which she allegedly had to appear in Nassau County had priority over the matter herein (see Watson v New York City Tr. Auth., 38 AD3d 532 [2007]; 22 NYCRR 125.1; see also Benson Park Assoc., LLC v Herman, 73 AD3d 464 [2010]). Furthermore, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, since there is a lack of evidence that defendant had prior written notice of the alleged defect in the crosswalk that caused her fall (see Katz v City of New York, 87 NY2d 241 [1995]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 617, 913 N.Y.S.2d 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polanco-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack