Reices v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc.

306 A.D.2d 394, 761 N.Y.S.2d 285
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 16, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 394 (Reices v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, 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
Reices v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc., 306 A.D.2d 394, 761 N.Y.S.2d 285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated July 3, 2002, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action, in effect, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

The plaintiff’s action was dismissed when the plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear at a trial calendar call of the action. To be relieved of the default in appearing at the calendar call, the plaintiff was required to show both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; 22 NYCRR 202.27; Mevorah v King, 303 AD2d 657 [2003]; D’Aniello v T.E.H. Slopes, 301 AD2d 556 [2003]; Bloom v Primus Automotive Fin. Servs., 292 AD2d 410 [2002]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 197 [2001]). The plaintiff demonstrated both. The plaintiffs counsel was only 10 to 15 minutes late in appearing for the calendar call, and that counsel was late simply because he stepped outside the courtroom to make a phone call to his office to determine, inter alia, how the action should proceed (see e.g. D'Aniello v T.E.H. Slopes, supra). In addition, the bill of particulars, verified by the plaintiff, was sufficient to demonstrate the merits of the action (see Pastore v Golub Corp., 184 AD2d 827 [1992]; Key Bank v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 144 AD2d 847 [1988]; Nicholas v Cashelard Rest., 249 AD2d 187 [1998]). Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs motion to vacate the dismissal. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Polsky v. Simon
2016 NY Slip Op 8213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
EMC Health Prods., Inc. v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Yearwood v. Post Park, LLC
91 A.D.3d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Morales v. Marma
88 A.D.3d 722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Felsen v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.
83 A.D.3d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
M.S. Hi-Tech, Inc. v. Thompson
23 A.D.3d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Rugieri v. Bannister
22 A.D.3d 299 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Kahlke v. Buscemi
12 A.D.3d 488 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Echevarria v. Waters
8 A.D.3d 330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Kandel v. Hoffman
309 A.D.2d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.D.2d 394, 761 N.Y.S.2d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reices-v-catholic-medical-center-of-brooklyn-queens-inc-nyappdiv-2003.