Donnelly v. Treeline Companies
Decision Date | 22 October 2009 |
Docket Number | 1257N.,590132/00.,114310/99.,590387/00. |
Parties | DARYA A. DONNELLY, Respondent, v. THE TREELINE COMPANIES et al., Appellants. COMMERCIAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CORP. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. REPUBLIC ELEVATOR CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And a Second Third-Party Action.) |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A motion to vacate a dismissal for failure to appear at a scheduled court conference (22 NYCRR 202.27) is governed by CPLR 5015. Such a motion must be made within one year of service of a copy of the dismissal order with notice of entry, and be supported by a showing of reasonable excuse for the failure to attend the conference and a meritorious cause of action. Where the dismissal order has never been served with notice of entry, there is no time limit on making a motion to vacate the dismissal, and any alleged prejudice caused by post-dismissal delay, short of laches, is not a consideration (Acevedo v Navarro, 22 AD3d 391 [2005]).
Plaintiff demonstrates both a reasonable excuse and the existence of a meritorious cause of action. The fact that none of the parties appeared for the scheduled court conference in July 2002 indicates that plaintiff's default was reasonable and likely attributable to the court's failure to notify everyone about the conference, whose date is not found in any prior conference order. Plaintiff's former attorney averred that his office was never notified of the conference or informed of the dismissal. Lack of receipt of notice can be a valid excuse for failure to appear at a conference (see Latha Rest. Corp. v Tower Ins. Co., 285 AD2d 437 [2001]).
Plaintiff has also established a meritorious cause of action. Indeed, on a prior appeal in 2004 (13 AD3d 143 [2004]), we affirmed the existence of numerous triable issues of fact concerning the liability of defendants Treeline and Commercial, and also of third-party defendant Republic.
Defendants contend that plaintiff's delay in moving to vacate the section 202.27 dismissal amounted to laches. While defendants were not apparently prejudiced in the two years immediately after the dismissal, during which they continued...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Torres v. Metro N. R.R.
...action to the calendar under C.P.L.R. § 3404. Cato v. City of New York, 70 A.D.3d 471, 471 (1st Dep't 2010); Donnelly v. Treeline Companies, 66 A.D.3d 563, 564 (1st Dep't 2009).II. VACATUR OF THE DISMISSAL Defendant urges that plaintiffs' motion be denied because plaintiffs failed to satisf......
-
Levy v. Berman Motorcars
...N.Y.S.2d 481 ). Further, the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Donnelly v. Treeline Cos., 66 A.D.3d 563, 889 N.Y.S.2d 2, cf. Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 A.D.3d 783, 784, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209 ).The appellant's remaining con......
-
Biton v. Turco
...a showing of reasonable excuse for the failure to attend the conference and a meritorious cause of action ( see Donnelly v. Treeline Cos., 66 A.D.3d 563, 889 N.Y.S.2d 2 [2009] ). The showing of merit necessary to vacate a section 202.27 default*877 is less than what is necessary for opposin......
-
King v. Kline
...thereby making his appearance on that date impossible. The court finds that these excuses are reasonable. See Donnelly v. Treeline Companies, 66 A.D.3d 563 (1st Dept 2009)("plaintiff's default was reasonable and likely attributable to the court's failure to notify everyone about the confere......