Horn v. Schenck Transp. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1978 |
| Citation | 65 A.D.2d 589,409 N.Y.S.2d 256 |
| Parties | Gil HORN, Respondent, v. SCHENCK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Abrams & Herman, P. C., Deer Park (Hyman Herman, Deer Park, of counsel), for appellant.
Albert J. Fiorella, Mineola, for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM and HAWKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 2, 1978, which granted plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.
Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and complaint dismissed.
The plaintiff was injured in April, 1971 when he fell while on a bus operated by defendant company. The instant personal injury action was then timely commenced and proceeded toward trial. However, neither the plaintiff nor his attorney appeared on the initial trial date in March 1975. The trial was adjourned to on or about May 1, 1975, when, again, no one appeared for the plaintiff. The case was marked off the calendar and a year later was dismissed as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3404. In October, 1977, represented by new counsel, the plaintiff sought to have the case restored to the calendar. The application was granted and the defendant company appeals.
The standard for restoring an action to the calendar is essentially the same as for determining whether to set aside a default judgment. Thus, the plaintiff must show merit, lack of prejudice to the defendant, and excusable neglect (Ruggiero v. Elbin Realty, 51 A.D.2d 1011, 380 N.Y.S.2d 773). In this case, reversal is necessitated by the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate excusable neglect.
The failure to appear on the scheduled trial dates and for several months thereafter, although partly a result of law office failure, is excusable due to the physical incapacity of both the plaintiff and his former attorney. However, the record indicates that the plaintiff disengaged his former attorney in March, 1976. Fifteen months lapsed before the plaintiff retained his present counsel in July, 1977. No explanation is given for this lengthy hiatus. If the plaintiff was physically incapacitated from pursuing his cause of action during this period he should have provided a doctor's affidavit to this effect. In the absence of any such explanation, the presumption of abandonment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salatino v. Pompa
...A.D.2d 366, 367, 723 N.Y.S.2d 474 ; Advanced Ortho–Tech. v. Orthospec, Inc., 203 A.D.2d 218, 612 N.Y.S.2d 886 ; Horn v. Schenck Transp. Co., 65 A.D.2d 589, 590, 409 N.Y.S.2d 256 ). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment t......
-
Spodek v. Lasser Stables
...plaintiffs had the burden of establishing merit, lack of prejudice to defendants and a reasonable excuse (see Horn v. Schneck Transp. Co., 65 A.D.2d 589, 409 N.Y.S.2d 256; Ruggiero v. Elbin Realty, 51 A.D.2d 1011, 380 N.Y.S.2d 773). While the papers submitted in support of the motion plainl......
-
Guzman v. Members America Credit Union
...as must be shown to open a default judgment" (See Ruggiero v. Elbin Realty, 51 A.D.2d 1011, 1012, 380 N.Y.S.2d 773; Horn v. Schenck, 65 A.D.2d 589, 409 N.Y.S.2d 256; also see CPLR 5015; Swedish v. Bourie, 233 A.D.2d 495, 650 N.Y.S.2d Having summarized the New York State Supreme Court requir......
-
Merrill v. Robinson
...a lack of prejudice to defendants if the case is reopened, and they must show a sufficient excuse for the delay (Horn v. Schenck Transp. Co., 65 A.D.2d 589, 409 N.Y.S.2d 256). Further, they must also show an absence of intent on their part to abandon the action (Condurso v. Thumsuden, 84 A.......