Kandel v. Hoffman
| Decision Date | 27 October 2003 |
| Parties | NINA KANDEL, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>SAUL HOFFMAN et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
An action dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 may be restored only if the plaintiff demonstrates both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Precision Envelope Co. v Marcus & Co., 306 AD2d 263, 264 [2003]; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 134 [2001]; Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 197 [2001]; cf. Davis v Maldonado, 307 AD2d 948 [2003]; Reices v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 306 AD2d 394 [2003]). The plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable explanation for her repeated failure to proceed with the trial or to comply with disclosure (see Campenni v Ridgecroft Estates Owners, 261 AD2d 496, 497 [1999]; Booth v Hawk Contrs., 259 AD2d 577, 578 [1999]; Van Kleeck v Horton Mem. Hosp., 251 AD2d 494 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate the order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint and the judgment entered thereon upon her default, and to restore the case to the calendar.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vera v. Soohoo
...v. Williams, 6 A.D.3d 569, 570, 774 N.Y.S.2d 834;Goichberg v. Sotudeh, 187 A.D.2d 700, 701, 590 N.Y.S.2d 283;cf. Kandel v. Hoffman, 309 A.D.2d 904, 766 N.Y.S.2d 115;Spodek v. Lasser Stables, 89 A.D.2d 892, 453 N.Y.S.2d 706). Indeed, the Supreme Court accepted that excuse, as evidenced by it......
-
Wild v. Target Corp..
...Constr., Inc., 55 A.D.3d 599, 864 N.Y.S.2d 314; Jones v. New York City Hous. Auth., 13 A.D.3d 489, 787 N.Y.S.2d 94; Kandel v. Hoffman, 309 A.D.2d 904, 766 N.Y.S.2d 115; Precision Envelope Co. v. Marcus & Co., 306 A.D.2d 263, 760 N.Y.S.2d 334). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by compet......
-
Hussain v. Varghese
...demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015[a][1] ; Kandel v. Hoffman, 309 A.D.2d 904 [2003] ; Campenni v. Ridgecroft Estates Owners, 61 A.D.2d 496 [1999] ). Here, plaintiff failed to establish either. Moreover, the recor......
- JASSER v. Munoz