Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp.

Citation846 N.Y.S.2d 384,46 A.D.3d 509,2007 NY Slip Op 09555
Decision Date04 December 2007
Docket Number2007-01146.,2007-05412.
PartiesBETTY GOLDSTEIN, Appellant, v. MEADOWS REDEVELOPMENT CO OWNERS CORP. I et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order entered April 24, 2007, as denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered April 24, 2007 is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the motion which was for leave to renew is granted and, upon renewal, the plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of the action, to restore the action to the trial calendar, and to extend the time to file a note of issue is granted, the plaintiff's time to file a note of issue is extended until 60 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order, and the order entered December 19, 2006 is modified accordingly; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered December 19, 2006 is dismissed as academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order entered April 24, 2007.

In this personal injury action the plaintiff failed to timely file the note of issue pursuant to a pretrial conference order. The case was marked "dismissed" in the court's files. Upon learning of the dismissal, the plaintiff's attorney moved to vacate the default in complying with the pretrial order, to restore the action to the trial calendar, and to extend the time for filing the note of issue. In support of the motion, the plaintiff's trial counsel submitted an affidavit which asserted that the default was due to "law office failure," in part occasioned by the illness and personal problems of the plaintiff's prior attorney. Also submitted by the plaintiff was an affidavit from the prior attorney alluding to his circumstances in a cursory manner. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

The plaintiff moved for leave to renew and reargue. In support of that motion the plaintiff provided greater specificity both as to the merits of the claim as well as the circumstances impairing the ability of the initial attorney to comply with the pretrial order in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 3 d2 Maio d2 2011
    ...at 904, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357;seeCPLR 2005; Papandrea v. Acevedo, 54 A.D.3d 915, 916, 864 N.Y.S.2d 138;Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 A.D.3d 509, 511, 846 N.Y.S.2d 384;Chiarello v. Alessandro, 38 A.D.3d 823, 824, 832 N.Y.S.2d 634). “However, law office failure should no......
  • Willis v. Keeler Motor Car Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 23 d4 Outubro d4 2014
    ...may, under certain circumstances, constitute a reasonable excuse for a party's default ( see Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 A.D.3d 509, 510, 846 N.Y.S.2d 384 [2007]; Rios v. Skaters World Roller Rink, 246 A.D.2d 882, 883, 667 N.Y.S.2d 821 [1998] ), such is not the ......
  • Willis v. Keeler Motor Car Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 23 d4 Outubro d4 2014
    ...may, under certain circumstances, constitute a reasonable excuse for a party's default (see Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 A.D.3d 509, 510, 846 N.Y.S.2d 384 [2007] ; Rios v. Skaters World Roller Rink, 246 A.D.2d 882, 883, 667 N.Y.S.2d 821 [1998] ), such is not the ......
  • Blake v. United States
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 d3 Agosto d3 2013
    ...55 A.D.3d 903, 904, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357;Papandrea v. Acevedo, 54 A.D.3d 915, 916, 864 N.Y.S.2d 138;Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 A.D.3d 509, 511, 846 N.Y.S.2d 384;Chiarello v. Alessandro, 38 A.D.3d 823, 824, 832 N.Y.S.2d 634). The claim of law office failure should, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT