Kalisch v. Maple Trade Finance Corporation
Decision Date | 21 December 2006 |
Docket Number | 9914. |
Parties | MAYRA DIAZ KALISCH, Appellant, v. MAPLE TRADE FINANCE CORPORATION, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In order to vacate her default, plaintiff would be required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at the conference and a meritorious cause of action (Espinoza v Concordia Intl. Forwarding Corp., 32 AD3d 326 [2006]). Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at a scheduled conference, she wholly failed to establish a meritorious cause of action. No affidavit of merit was annexed to the motion papers.
Nevertheless, the adjudication was not for neglect to prosecute and was not on the merits (Greenberg v De Hart, 4 NY2d 511, 516-517 [1958]). Therefore, the dismissal does not have res judicata effect (Espinoza, 32 AD3d at 328).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sapphire Inv. Ventures, LLC v. Mark Hotel Sponsor LLC
...be on the merits to give it preclusive effect. Landau v. LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 N.Y. 3d at 13; Kalisch v. Maple Trade Fin. Corp., 35 A.D.3d 291 (1st Dep't 2006); Espinoza v. Concordia Intl. Forwarding Corp., 32 A.D.3d 326, 328 (1st Dep't 2006). Under New York's transactional approach,......
-
Mosley v. 137th St. Props., LLC
...be on the merits to give it preclusive effect. Landau v. LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 N.Y.3d at 13; Kalisch v. Maple Trade Fin. Corp., 35 A.D.3d 291 (1st Dep't 2006); Esoinoza v. Concordia Intl. Forwarding Corp., 32 A.D.3d 326, 328 (1st Dep't 2006). Defendant demonstrates that the complaint......
-
Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Carranza
...that dismissal is of no preclusive effect. Landau v. LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, 11 N.Y.3d 8, 13 (2008); Kalisch v. Maple Trade Fin. Corp., 35 A.D.3d 291 (1st Dep't 2006); Espinoza v. Concordia Intl. Forwarding Corp., 32 A.D.3d 326, 328 (1st Dep't 2006). See C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(5). Consequentl......
-
In re Kalisch, Case No. 06-B-10706 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 5/30/2007)
...be dismissed without prejudice and clarifying that the dismissal did not have res judicata effect. See Kalisch v. Maple Trade Finance, 827 N.Y.S.2d 40, 41 (1st Dep't 2006). 2. A few months later, Mrs. Kalisch als o filed a complaint against Maple Trade in this Court on February 13, 2007, al......