Stabile v. Gomez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stabile v. Gomez

280 A.D.2d 541, 720 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1884

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 13, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated May 8, 2000, which denied their motion, in effect, to vacate their default in appearing at a conference and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action was dismissed when the plaintiffs failed to ap[542] pear at a conference (see, 22 NYCRR 202.27 [b]). The court properly denied their motion, in effect, to vacate the default in appearing at the conference and to restore the action to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their default and failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; Valente v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 252 AD2d 580; Lake Claire Homeowners Assn. v Rosenberg, 245 AD2d 427; Arthur v City of Yonkers, 237 AD2d 474). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated May 8, 2000, which denied their motion, in effect, to vacate their default in appearing at a conference and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action was dismissed when the plaintiffs failed to ap[542] pear at a conference (see, 22 NYCRR 202.27 [b]). The court properly denied their motion, in effect, to vacate the default in appearing at the conference and to restore the action to the trial calendar. The plaintiffs failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their default and failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 NY2d 831; Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; Valente v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 252 AD2d 580; Lake Claire Homeowners Assn. v Rosenberg, 245 AD2d 427; Arthur v City of Yonkers, 237 AD2d 474). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Stabile v. Gomez, 280 A.D.2d 541, 720 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 541 (Stabile v. Gomez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related