Roach v. Benjamin

78 A.D.3d 468, 909 N.Y.S.2d 635
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 468 (Roach v. Benjamin) 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
Roach v. Benjamin, 78 A.D.3d 468, 909 N.Y.S.2d 635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered November 27, 2009, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default and appoint for her a guardian ad litem, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

When defendant failed to appear at a hearing on June 24, 2009, the court granted judgment of possession and $6,129 in rent arrears to plaintiff landlord, which was entered on September 3. Defendant’s submissions herein, on her motion to “nullify[ ] all proceedings in this action which occurred after the filing of the Complaint,” were insufficient to demonstrate that she was incapable of prosecuting or defending her rights (thus necessitating appointment of a guardian), or that plaintiff actively concealed from the court any possible mental disability [469]*469with which defendant might have been afflicted at the time this action was commenced (see Urban Pathways v Lublin, 227 AD2d 186 [1996]). Moreover, the hearsay affirmation of defendant’s counsel did not provide competent evidence of defendant’s incapacity claim, and her assertion that she would subpoena her client’s doctor should the motion court determine a hearing was necessary did not compel the court to request and review those purported records (see 400 W. 59th St. Partners, LLC v Edwards, 28 Misc 3d 93 [App Term 2010]). Declining to appoint a guardian under such circumstances, without a hearing, was a provident exercise of discretion, especially in light of defendant’s failure to submit competent medical evidence in support of her assertion, and that decision was consistent with the court’s own observations and familiarity with the history of the action. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority
141 A.D.3d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
VANYO, RONALD C. v. VANYO, ANN M.
120 A.D.3d 1536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Tower Insurance v. Estate of DeCosta
113 A.D.3d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
New York Life Insurance & Annuity Corp. v. Wei Ping Lin
100 A.D.3d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 A.D.3d 468, 909 N.Y.S.2d 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-benjamin-nyappdiv-2010.