Selechnik v. Law Off. of Howard R. Birnbach

120 A.D.3d 1220, 991 N.Y.S.2d 894
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 10, 2014
Docket2012-11121
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1220 (Selechnik v. Law Off. of Howard R. Birnbach) 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
Selechnik v. Law Off. of Howard R. Birnbach, 120 A.D.3d 1220, 991 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and negligent hiring and retention, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered September 26, 2012, as denied their motion to vacate an order of the same court dated January 12, 2012, entered upon their default in appearing at pretrial conferences, directing the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Law Office of Howard R. Birnbach.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To vacate their default in appearing at a pretrial conference, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CFLR 5015 [a] [1]; Dobbins v Vartabedian, 23 AD3d 431, 431 [2005]). Since the plaintiffs failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at numerous court-ordered conferences, it is unnecessary to consider whether they demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Ogazi v Ogazi, 46 AD3d 646, 646 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was to vacate an order of the same court dated January 12, 2012, entered upon their default, directing the dismissal the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Law Office of Howard R. Birnbach (see CFLR 5015 [a] [1]; Dobbins v Vartabedian, 23 AD3d at 431).

Mastro, J.E, Dillon, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Related

126 Henry St., Inc. v. Cater
2021 NY Slip Op 04689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
EMC Mtge. Corp. v. Walker
2019 NY Slip Op 6474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Erzulie Prudence v. White
2016 NY Slip Op 7173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Natural Product Import America, Inc. v. J&J Express Trucking Corp.
137 A.D.3d 883 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Wright v. City of Poughkeepsie
136 A.D.3d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
SDF8 CBK, LLC v. 689 St. Marks Avenue, Inc.
131 A.D.3d 1037 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Vitolo v. Suarez
130 A.D.3d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Guerrera v. Tooker
128 A.D.3d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB v. Makkas
127 A.D.3d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Blythe v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.
123 A.D.3d 1073 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 A.D.3d 1220, 991 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selechnik-v-law-off-of-howard-r-birnbach-nyappdiv-2014.