Ward v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

82 A.D.3d 471, 918 N.Y.2d 93
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 8, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 471 (Ward v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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
Ward v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 82 A.D.3d 471, 918 N.Y.2d 93 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[472]*472Defendant obtained a default judgment dismissing the action after plaintiffs failed to comply with a precondition to commencing action by failing to appear at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, after adjourning the hearing nine times. In seeking to vacate the dismissal, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense (see Best v City of New York, 97 AD2d 389 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 847 [1984]; Wells v City of New York, 254 AD2d 121 [1998], lv dismissed 92 NY2d 1046 [1999], cert denied 527 US 1012 [1999]). They also failed to demonstrate the merits of their cause of action by not submitting an affidavit of merit by a medical professional (see Walker v City of New York, 46 AD3d 278, 281-282 [2007]; Di Simone v Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 NY2d 632, 634 [2003]).

Nor was plaintiffs’ “conclusory and perfunctory” claim of law office failure a reasonable excuse for the default in view of the pattern of dilatory behavior they engaged in in prosecuting this matter (see Perez v New York City Hous. Auth., 47 AD3d 505, 505-506 [2008]; Metral v Bonifacio, 309 AD2d 724 [2003]). There were, in addition to the 10 missed appointments for a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, and other things, three motions to file a late notice of claim. In the nearly 10 years since plaintiffs filed their late notice of claim, discovery has not even been commenced (see Metral, 309 AD2d at 724). Moreover, their proffered excuse is based not on the affirmant’s personal knowledge but on the hearsay of a per diem attorney who claimed that a motion clerk advised him that no motion was pending in the case (see AWL Indus., Inc. v QBE Ins. Corp., 65 AD3d 904, 906 [2009]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Ochoa v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 32188(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Bandhu
2023 NY Slip Op 01180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Mumford v. 854 Gerard Ave. Corp.
70 Misc. 3d 131(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.3d 471, 918 N.Y.2d 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2011.